BEST EN Think Tank XVI: Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
12-15 July 2016
ZENAT Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development Berlin-Eberswalde
BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings Editor
Rachel Hay
BEST Education Network
James Cook University
1 James Cook Drive
Townsville QLD 4811
These proceedings are published under a Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Publisher
James Cook University
Townsville, Australia
ISBN 978-0-9944984-6-5
To cite papers from these proceedings, please use this format.
Lead author surname, Initial, second and subsequent author surname, initial.,(2016)“Title of Paper”, in R. Hay (ed.) Conference Proceedings of BEST EN Think Tank XVI. Townsville, Australia: James Cook University, page number(s) of contribution.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank i BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Organising Committee Members
Chair of BEST EN Co-Chair of BEST EN Chair of Think Thank XVI
Gianna Moscardo Pierre Benckendorff Wolfgang Strasdas
BEST EN Secretary Think Tank XVI Secretary
Rachel Hay Michelle Geigenmuller
Committee Members
Julia Albrecht Deborah Edwards Dagmar Lund-Durlacher
Paige Viren Paolo Mura Caroline Scarles
Janne Liburd Tina Roenhovde Tiller Anja Hergesell
Erling Kavita
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank ii BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Sponsors
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank iii BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Reviewers
Full papers and extended abstracts underwent double blind peer review and were edited prior to publication. BEST EN would like to thank the following reviewers:
Julia N. Albrecht, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Christian Baumgartner, Naturfreunde Internationale, Vienna Pierre Benckendorff, Queensland University, Australia Mingming Cheng, University of Technology, Sydney Alexander Dingeldey, DHBW – Ravensburg, Germany Valentina Dinica, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Deborah Edwards, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Willy Engelbrecht, Independent Institute of Education, South Africa Jose-Carlos Carcia-Rosell, University of Lapland, Finland Zilmiyah Kamble, Taylors University, Malaysia Erling Kavita, Polytechnic of Namibia, Namibia Dagmar Lund-Durlacher, Modul University, Vienna Kevin Mearns, University of South Africa, South Africa Gianna Moscardo, James Cook University, Australia Paolo Mura, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Jarmo Ritalahti, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Finland Derek Robins, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom Caroline Scarles, University of Surrey, UK Christian Schott, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Pauline Sheldon, University of Hawaii, USA Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, University of South Carolina, USA Anna Spenceley, IUNC WCPAA TAPAS Group/ STAND cc, South Africa Uma Thevi Munikrishnan, Taylor’s University Malaysia Toney Thomas, Taylor’s University Malaysia Seldjan Timur, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey Peter Varga, Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne, France Jojo Villamin, Far Eastern University, Phillipines Paige Viren, East Carolina University, USA Ida Marie Visbech Andersen, Lillebaelt Academy, Denmark
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank iv BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Preface
The Environment-People Nexus in Sustainable Tourism: Finding the Balance
BEST EN is an international consortium of educators committed to the development and dissemination of knowledge in the field of sustainable tourism. The organization’s annual Think Tank brings together academics and industry representatives from around the world to discuss a particular theme related to sustainable tourism in order to move research and education in this specific field forward.
We are pleased to present the proceedings of the BEST Education Network (BESTEN) Think Tank XVI entitled Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies. The event was held in Berlin-Eberswalde, July 12-15, 2016, in conjunction with the ZENAT Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Eberswalde, considered one of Germany’s greenest universities.
The concept of corporate responsibility in tourism is a challenging one; it is subject to much critical debate, especially with regard to finding an appropriate balance between the different dimensions of standards, practices and policies.
The proceedings present work by academics and practitioners worldwide, conducted on various aspects of corporate responsibility in tourism. They include abstracts and papers accepted by the scientific committee following a double blind peer review process.
Forty-five research papers were presented at the conference. Presentations were held within the following C(S)R themed sessions:
• Concepts, Aspects, Governance and Policies • Attitudes, Practices and Certification of Tourism Businesses • Sustainable Development and Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Destinations • Communication, Education and C(S)R-related Consumer Attitudes/Behaviour
The contributions were thematically selected for each group and are arranged in order of presentation in the proceedings. The full proceedings as well as the PowerPoint presentations are available on the BEST EN website www.besteducationnetwork.org/
The knowledge summarised in these proceedings is a compendium of the current information for managing CSR and will have a great influence on how we manage CSR in Tourism.
The Editor and the BEST EN Executive Committee anticipate that readers of this volume will find the papers informative, thought provoking and of value to their research.
Best wishes,
Rachel Hay
Editor
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank v BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Contents
Organising Committee Members...... ii Sponsors ...... iii Reviewers ...... iv Preface ...... v Contents ...... vi Session 1: C(S)R Concepts, Aspects, Governance and Policies ...... 1 Institutionalizing volunteering for Protected Areas in New Zealand: an early exploration of tourism concessionaires' perspectives Valentina Dinica ...... 2 Navigating Evolving Global Trends in Financial Crime: a Tourism Focus Verity Anne Greenwood ...... 28 In Search of a New Mindset to Underpin Tourism Development Larry Dwyer & Verity Anne Greenwood ...... 32 Examining Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism: The Sharing Economy and It’s Values and Regulation Stephen Wearing & Kevin Lyons ...... 36 Values, Sustainability and Destination Choice Decisions of North Americans Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, Seyhmuz Baloglu & Dr. Haywantee Rumi Ramkissoon ...... 55 Influencing sustainability through engagement in policy processes - tourism businesses as policy stakeholders Valentina Dinica ...... 68 Challenges to attaining “Accessible Tourism for All” in German destinations as part of a CSR-oriented approach (Conceptual Paper) Andreas Kagermeier ...... 104 Analysing CSR Practices in Food Operations: A case study of holiday resorts in Gran Canaria and Antalya Dagmar Lund-Durlacher* & Hannes Antonschmidt^ & Klaus-Peter Fritz° ...... 119 Spirituality and corporate social responsibility in tourism: a view from lesser developed countries Alexandra Law* & Putu Indah Rahmawati^ & Terry De Lacy° ...... 130 eTraining for Sustainable Tourism: Investing in Skills as Part of Corporate Responsibility and CSV Initiatives Ayako Ezaki ...... 136 Session 2: C(S)R Attitudes, Practices and Certification of Tourism Businesses ...... 157 Reviewing 24 years of empowering communities by the Africa Foundation Kevin Mearns ...... 158
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank vi BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Assessing the sustainability reporting of a JSE company on the Travel and Leisure Board, 2010-2012 Candice Hunter* & Kevin Mearns^ ...... 167 Determining social entrepreneurship perception in business by using SWOT analysis Ali Şükrü Çetinkaya* & Sema Alimoğlu ÖZKAN^ ...... 189 CSR in medical tourism – new markets, new responsibilities Kerstin Heuwinkel ...... 195 The moderating role of values in planned behaviour: the case of tourism SMEs managers' intention to implement CSR measures Lluís Garay* & Xavier Font^ & August Francesc Corrons° ...... 213 Can Tourism Businesses Foster Better Inclusion for People with Visual Impairment? Kristof Tomej ...... 217 Adoption and diffusion of sustainability in tourism and nature-based family firms: drivers and outcomes Johanna Zanon* & Andreas Kallmuenzer^ & William Nikolakis° & Mike Petersꜙ ...... 223 Reaching the hard to reach: CSR and employee engagement in tourism Kelsy Hejjas* &Caroline Scarles^ &Graham Miller° ...... 230 A study of innovation in the making CARMACAL and the Dutch outbound travel industry Harald Buijtendijk* & Jorine Vermeer^ & Juultje Blom ° ...... 235 Session 3: C(S)R, Sustainable Development and Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Destinations ...... 268 Responsible High Performance Sports Tourism – Opportunities and Limitations Kerstin Heuwinkel* & Liz Bressan^ ...... 269 Towards Sustainable Tourism: What factors most influence decision makers in water- energy planning? Arayeh Afsordegan*, Mar Vila *, Núria Agell *, Mónica Sánchez ^, Gerard Costa* ..... 289 Rural communities’ participation in the planning and management of tourism developments: a case study from Lesotho Limpho Lekaota (Dr) ...... 294 Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Modern Destination Management Organizations Gabriela Estrella* & Myrta Zemp^ & Urs Wagenseil° ...... 310 Sustainable Tourism Management on Small Island Destinations: A New Model for Sustainable Development Bonnie Lewtas* & René Schmidpeter^...... 326 New approach on creating shared value in corporate social responsibility: Effective engagement with Indigenous stakeholders for community empowerment
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank vii BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
*Gabrielle McGinnis & ^Tamara Young & °Mark Harvey ...... 344 Challenges of the development of sustainable products in tourism destinations Fabian Weber* & Barbara Taufer^ ...... 354 Third sector organisations and stakeholders in tourism management in protected areas, the case of visitor management Julia N. Albrecht ...... 359 CSR and tourism practices in communities near mines: A South African case study Felicite A Fairer-Wessels, ...... 364 Session 4: C(S)R Communication, Education and C(S)R-related Consumer Attitudes/Behaviour ...... 382 The act of giving: Understanding corporate social responsibility in the Buddhism context of Myanmar Nicole Häusler & Kathrin Dischereit, ...... 383 United we stand, divided we fall: Strategies for engaging customers in Corporate Responsibility Programs Karen Hughes* & Gianna Moscardo^ ...... 402 The Influences of Hotel Contexts and Framing on Tourist Behaviour. Comparative Analysis of Factor Configurations. (Conceptual Paper) Stefan Raich ...... 424 Crowdsourcing – New Ways of an efficient Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the Hospitality Industry Matthias Straub* ...... 441 Decolonising tourism education through Indigenisation: Responsive efforts to the corporate social responsibility of Australian universities Tamara Young* & Amy Maguire^ ...... 445 The impact of CSR activities of family businesses on consumer purchase decision Zehrer Anita* ...... 448 Tourists’ attitude towards and willingness to pay for a new eco-label in tourism: The potential for Blue Flag’s new certification for sustainable boating tourism operators, exemplified by the case of whale watching in Iceland Isabel Lissner* & Marius Mayer* ...... 453 The role of sustainability communication in the attitude-behaviour gap of sustainable tourism – the case of certified tour-operators in Germany Christina Tölkes ...... 457 Communicating sustainability values of wine producers Tobias Danielmeier ...... 461 The influence of environmental attitudes and concerns on the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German tourists
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank viii BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Isabell Wulfsberg¹ & Dirk Reiser 2 & Volker Rundshagen 3 & Nicolai Scherle 4 ...... 465 Tour operators and tourist’s Preferences for CSR Policies: A Choice Experiment Approach Jorge E. Araña* & Gianluca Goffi^ & Carmelo J. León° ...... 484 APPENDICES ...... 486 Conference Program ...... 486 List of Participants ...... 502
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank ix BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Session 1: C(S)R Concepts, Aspects, Governance and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 1 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Institutionalizing volunteering for Protected Areas in New Zealand: an early exploration of tourism concessionaires' perspectives
Valentina Dinica
Victoria University or Wellington, School of Government, [email protected]
Keywords: concessions, volunteering, donations, sponsorship, protected areas, biodiversity
Abstract
The expansion of Protected Areas’ commercialization, and of voluntary mechanisms for their management, has been the preferred neo-liberal policy approach for nature management. However, so far, these approaches have been predominantly used as complements, rather than backbones, of institutional and policy frameworks. This is not the case anymore in New Zealand since 2009, when radical public sector reforms and new strategies were initiated, aiming to limit the state’s role in Protected Areas’ funding and management. Tourism concessionaires, other businesses and communities are asked to enhance their engagement towards ‘conservation gain’, through volunteering, donations, and corporate sponsorships. By 2065, the Department of Conservation expects to play a facilitation role, with more services to be delivered through volunteering. Concessionaires form major target groups, and are promised enhanced access to Protected Areas.
This paper offers an early-exploration of reactions from tourism concessionaires. A behavioural change framework is applied as a heuristic, to identify potential pitfalls and success factors. The research design combines document analysis with interviews. The main findings are that, while some already volunteer, there is little support for institutionalizing volunteering and shifting responsibilities to society. Concessionaires do not enjoy a level- playing field regarding the fees paid, market contexts, and various contractual provisions. Increased competition and volunteering expenses could worsen the profitability/bankability of many. Some expect private benefits from volunteering, raising concerns of potential corruption through contractual design/compliance failures, and the watering-down of planning instruments. The Department’s policy focuses on persuasion mechanisms and ignores important resource and power-related aspects. Its weak sustainability discourses could undermine its credibility with businesses seeking more than quick branding. The Department relies on voluntary contributions as alternative to the legally-available option to include ‘conservation gains’ in concessions. Many interviewees prefer a balance, for a more level-playing field.
Introduction: the empirical research problem and research objective
Whether genuine or politically induced, budget shortages for Protected Areas’ (PA)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 2 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
management have become common across developed countries, and have deepened across developing countries, with the entrenchment of neoliberal political ideologies of governance, since early 1980s. Many PA authorities worldwide try to cope by deploying an increasing diversity of voluntary mechanisms (VM). Next to donations and corporate sponsorships, sophisticated schemes have been put in place to enable volunteer labour (by tourists, staff of business, NGOs, local communities, and the free-of-charge deployment of resources/equipment/vehicles they may enable conservation work; see Lorimer, 2010; McGehee, 2014; Pfueller et al, 2011; Selin, 2009; Waithaka et al, 2012). Pitas and colleagues differentiate donations/philanthropy from corporate sponsorships, because in the latter case businesses “expect some marketable return on their investment based on the sponsorship fees paid to public entities” (2015:3). Increasingly more corporations are attracted to donate to PAs because “park sponsorships allow their brand name to be recognized by a target market in a relatively uncluttered and non-competitive venue” (Mowen and Graefe, 2002:32).
Donations and volunteering have been long used in New Zealand, which was identified as the second most generous country worldwide, after the United States, in a recent survey by the Charities Aid Foundation (Radio New Zealand, 2016a). In 2008, 9000 volunteers were working in collaboration with the Department of Conservation (DOC), the national authority in charge with PA management (DOC, 2008:12). By 2014, this number increased to 15.000 (DOC, 2014a:2). What makes New Zealand a particularly interesting case to study is the governance experiment being implemented since 2009, aiming to combine enhanced PA commercialization with an institutionalization of VM across businesses and communities, for the long-term (DOC, 2014b; DOC, 2015a,b,c,d,e).
Governments of neoliberal orientation, winning elections continuously since 2009, have adopted a strategy, called the Business Growth Agenda. This was implemented for the natural resources sector through the 2012 Programme for Building Natural Resources. The Programme aims to increase the contribution of natural resources to the economy to 40% of Gross Domestic product (GDP) by 2025, with emphasis on tourism growth (New Zealand Government, 2012). One of the government’s plan to achieve this is to transform PAs into more profitable lands and manage them environmentally, by changing DOC’s operational priorities and governance role. None of the reforms described below were underpinned by public participation.
First, the government envisages transforming DOC into an active supplier of tourism infrastructure (DOC, 2015e:10). Nation-wide priority locations were identified by DOC and classified as Icon and Gateway destinations, considering mainly demand by international tourists (DOC, 2013a:28;46-53). DOC is expected to become a facilitator of tourism growth regionally and nationally, under the introduced mottos of “conservation for prosperity” and “conservation economy” (DOC, 2009:5; 2015a:20). This requires DOC to become more business-friendly, by enabling higher business certainty and volumes through the way it issues concessions for commercial operations within PA. A concession can be a permit, when issued for less than 10 years, a license (for higher impact activities envisaged for longer timeframes), or lease (involving the exclusive use of PA land).
These governmental objectives have already been implemented through DOC’s Statements of Intent, Annual Reports, multi-annual budget documents, and the 10-year regional
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 3 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
planning documents updated so far, known as Conservation Management Strategies (DOC, 2014c,d,e). Interestingly, Statements of Intent (see DOC, 2009; 2013a,b) are internal documents, with four-year time horizons, and no statutory role in regional PA planning and management. Nevertheless, the new strategic goals on PA commercialization and VM institutionalization were included there as management philosophies for the next 100 years, and are used by DOC as regional planning guidelines (see DOC, 2014c,d,e for criticism from the public and DOC’s replies). The politically-prescribed strategic goals and operational priorities for DOC misalign with the 1987 Conservation Act, which sets the following hierarchy of legal objectives: 1) nature protection; 2) public education on conservation values; 3) fostering recreation; and 4) allowing for tourism whenever compatible with nature conservation. The law says that the development of facilities can be promoted “to the extent that any use of any natural or historic resource for tourism and recreation is not inconsistent with its conservation” (author’s emphasis). DOC’s legal responsibility is clearly formulated as “to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation and to allow their use for tourism” (Part II, section 6e of the 1987 Conservation Act; italics by author).
The lifting of tourism as the de-facto second rank objective for DOC’s operations has already led to proposals to abandon the maintenance of some backcountry infrastructure (DOC, 2015d,e; Radio New Zealand, 2016b). However, this is popular with the domestic recreational community and some concessionaires. Such decisions are likely to negatively affect the motivation of both groups to engage in VM with DOC (Radio New Zealand, 2016c). In New Zealand, taxpayers foot more than 80% of DOC’s budget, while governments of all political orientation are unwilling to use effective financing instruments, like PA entry fees (with low/no charge for taxpayers), or airport taxes for international visitors (Dinica, 2015a:32). While, in other countries, a governmental strategy and departmental policy undermining the legal hierarchy of responsibilities would be subjected to judicial review or administrative court reviews, this has not happened in New Zealand so far.
Second, the Programme aims to change DOC’s governance role from that of chief service delivery agent, into that of facilitator, calling upon individual and corporate responsibility to protect nature, on which the country’s wealth and citizen’s health relies (DOC, 2009:5; 2013, 2015c:14). In its 2015-2019 Statement of Intent, DOC writes that its strategic goal is that by 2065 “More conservation activity is achieved by others” (DOC 2015c:23). There are high expectations of “conservation gains” through work by community groups and NGOs. However, all tourism businesses are also expected to be able to carry out voluntary conservation work independently by 2040, when the envisaged outcome is that “Every business fosters conservation for this and future generations” (2015c:3; 24). Other business types identified as targets for partnerships with DOC are filming companies, dairy, farming, energy and extractive industries (DOC, 2013a).
Short-term quantitative objectives for concessionaire and non-concessionaire tourism businesses have only been recently articulated. The latter are included in the intermediary outcome for the general business group, aiming to “Increase partnership revenue by 5%” between 2015 and 2019 (DOC, 2015c:8). To achieve this, DOC plans to develop annually a set of: “10-15 highly visible national business partnerships, and a larger set of 50-60 regional partnerships” (DOC 2015d: 50). For concessionaires, DOC’s intermediate target is that new partnership arrangements will be concluded between 2015 and 2019, which should “Lift the contribution to conservation outcomes from concessionaires by at least 10%.” (DOC,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 4 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
2015c:23). As background information, in 2015, only 7.1 million NZD were raised from businesses of all types (DOC 2015d:43), while the monetary value of community volunteering in 2012 was 14.2 million NZD1. To put this in perspective, in 2015, DOC’s budgetary allocation was 430.8 million NZD (Dinica, 2016a:7). In this context, the research objective pursued here is to develop an early understanding of the prospects for support from tourism concessionaires, for the strategy to institutionalize volunteering, and the potential pitfalls of this strategy. The next section explains the organizational changes, policy approaches and implementation intentions, in so far clear. This helps select a suitable theoretical perspective for the research objective.
Organizational restructuring, policy visions and implementation plans for the institutionalization of voluntary contributions
The nature governance provisions of the 2010 Agenda and 2012 Programme were presented to society as a new sustainable development paradigm for PA, whereby communities and businesses take responsibility for nature protection, while increasing prosperity for themselves and nationwide (New Zealand Government, 2012; DOC, 2015d:10; 2015e:8-11;46). To implement this, in 2013, DOC was restructured, centralizing decision- making to six regional conservancies, from twelve. 313 permanent new positions were established and allocated to building “partnerships” with communities and businesses, for VM, after making 230 staff redundant (DOC, 2015d:72). Following a new restructuring in 2015-2016, to respond to societal criticism on centralization, DOC now has eight regional conservancies and a relatively lower number of partnership staff (Controller and Auditor General, 2016). DOC’s restructuring resulted in the reduction of asset management, planning and inspection positions (DOC, 2013b). It also led to the reduction of the number of concession application offices to four (from eleven). This increases the distance between decision-makers and the rangers, or volunteers, responsible for monitoring concessionaires and PA’s condition.
DOC’s policy provisions regarding volunteering are still vague, mid 2016. DOC has so far explained better why it seeks more volunteering, rather than how. Virtually all documents issued since 2009 use the blanket term of “partnerships”, arguing that they are being sought with all business types. The reasons invoked are that businesses enjoy direct or indirect benefits from ecosystem services, and benefit of New Zealand’s ‘clean and green’ image and branding, to which the Conservation Estate contributes significantly. DOC reports that it “came 8th in a survey of New Zealand’s top 100 brands of 2015” (DOC, 2015d:43), and that this branding value should be recognized by businesses through volunteering for conservation gain.
All three VM types seem to be pursued. However, concessionaires are less likely to engage in corporate sponsorship and donations, since they pay a concession fee. For them more realistic options would be to focus on labour from staff and/or free use of equipment/resources, volunteer tourism and donations from clients. DOC’s documents do
1 Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1206/S00420/building-communities-through-volunteering.htm
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 5 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
not clarify though that these are the paths pursued. Further, it is unclear whether DOC has any preference regarding the types of partnerships with concessionaires: formal or informal; bilateral or multi-stakeholder (that may include community groups/NGOs, local authorities and non-tourism businesses)? Six years after the strategy’s introduction, there are also uncertainties on how DOC’s objectives will be measured:
- financially, by reporting on the value of donations and corporate sponsorships, the economic value of labour by staff and by volun-tourists, and/or the value of the allocated equipment/material resources (like helicopters, ships or other vehicles owned by concessionaires for the rental of which DOC currently spends significant shares of its budget)?, or
- by means of some concrete biodiversity indicators, as practical improvements made possible by financial, resource and labour contributions?
Another uncertainty relates to the statement that one outcome envisaged for the 2015- 2019 period is “A statutory environment that allows conservation to gain from business partnerships” (DOC, 2015c:24). This alludes to a possible change of the 1987 Conservation Act regulating concessions. However, this Act already allows DOC to achieve “conservation gains” from concessionaires. Section 17 ZG(2) regulates that the Minister may “include in any concession provisions for the concessionaire to carry on activities relating to the management of any conservation area on behalf of the Minister or at any time enter into any agreement providing for the concessionaire to carry out such activities”. Previous empirical research shows, however, that this legally available option is un/under-utilized (Dinica, 2016a). Requirements included in contracts take a ‘do no harm’ approach: do not break any applicable law, strategy, management plan; don’t not light fires, “do not cut down or damage any vegetation; or damage any natural feature or historic resource on the Land” (DOC, no date:12); do not dispose of toilet wastes near water, etcetera. No provisions for nature enhancement of best-practice environmental management were identified.
In terms of policy intervention types, the Department prefers communication oriented approaches. There seems to be a strong belief in the effectiveness of awareness raising efforts, stressing the importance of nature for the economy, health and wellbeing, to generate long-lasting and meaningful behavioural changes in society. All DOC’s policy documents emphasize the need for individuals and businesses to understand and appreciate the environmental benefits offered by PA.
Dinica developed and tested a one-actor framework of behavioural change, referred to as the Persuade-Enable-Constrain (PEC) framework (2014; 2015b). This is underpinned by the idea that behaviour is influenced by the actors’ motivations, cognitions/knowledge-base and resources/powers (as argued by Bressers, 2006; Klok, 1991). All other factors of relevance are viewed as influencing behaviour by means of influencing one or more of these key actor characteristics (according to Bressers, 2006). These actor characteristics can be influenced through three types of behavioural change mechanisms: constraining, enabling and persuasion mechanism (drawing on Lockton et al, 2009; see Figure 1), each of which could be strong or weak in intensity (Dinica, 2013).
In its 2015-2019 Statement of Intent, the Department presents a rational/positivist intervention logic, linking immediate and long-term outcomes for “business partnerships”.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 6 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
The latter are envisaged for achievement over several decades (between 2040 - 2065). Examples of long-term desirable outcomes are that “Businesses are more motivated and capable to undertake conservation independently of DOC” (p.24); there is wide societal acknowledgment that “conservation is core to New Zealanders’ identity, values and thinking” and that conservation is “as an essential investment in NZ’s prosperity and brand” (2015c:23). The strong assumption is that knowledge is the most important ingredient for behavioural change. Below are several immediate and intermediary outcomes, underpinning the long-term ones, in the intervention logic models. The largest number of envisaged outcomes refers to cognitions:
- “Businesses understand, value and engage in conservation”;
- “Businesses recognize the relevance of the DOC brand and want to associate with it”;
- “Businesses recognize how conservation can help them achieve greater business success and they are enabled to do so”;
- “DOC tells the conservation story of Treaty partnership”.
Similar outcomes are included in the more general “engagement outcomes model”, applicable to communities too (2015c:23):
- “DOC builds knowledge, tools and resources for conservation engagement”;
- “DOC grows people’s general awareness of conservation”.
Regarding the availability of relevant resources for behavioural change, the following outcomes are envisaged:
- “DOC has quality products and services that are easy to find and buy (new or current)” and … (p. 24);
- “DOC (and others) allocate available funding effectively to grow conservation”;
- “People and organisations have the capability and capacity to act on conservation”;
- “People and organisations are provided with conservation opportunities (by DOC and others)” (p.23)
Therefore, the Department’s outcomes models suggest that the deployment of persuasive mechanisms, targeted at knowledge creation through education and motivation build-up, forms the backbone of the policy aiming to generate long-lasting behavioural changes towards conservation gains, at societal level (DOC, 2015c:14; 2015e:47). In addition, a moderate use of enabling mechanisms is also acknowledged as temporarily necessary, to develop technical and management skills.
The references to positive motivations, enhanced cognitions and resources, make the Persuade-Enable-Constrain framework very suitable for an ex-ante analysis of the prospects
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 7 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
for concessionaires to support this policy through an adequate implementation. The Department, through the inclusion of the following immediate desirable outcome, acknowledges the importance of a behavioural framework: DOC should develop “a sound model of what makes people change in regard to conservation” (DOC, 2015c:23). Because “there is still a poor understanding of the need to invest in the protection of our natural environment to ensure it provides the essential resources and services we rely on” (DOC, 2015e:47). The theoretical lens: a behavioural change approach
Achieving sustainability outcomes requires significant behavioural changes from individuals and businesses. Sometimes actors are caught in conflicts, or persist in environmentally damaging behaviours that are ‘institutionalized’ through formal or informal rules (Ostrom, 1987). As suggested in Figure 1, such rules may indirectly constrain the actors’ options for behavioural change, by limiting their freedom to conceptualize sustainability towards weak approaches. In other cases, institutional frameworks may allow actors large freedom regarding how they conceive and operationalize sustainability. This will be convenient for some actors prioritizing economic objectives.
Dinica (2014, 2015a) developed a one-actor framework of behavioural change, and applied it in two Dutch case studies, resulting in the specification of several hypotheses for testing. The framework is meant to be used also for further conceptual work, towards the generation of new hypotheses on behavioural changes towards positive sustainability outcomes. This section explains its main ideas, and proposes to use it as heuristic, to ex-ante assess the prospects for concessionaires to embrace volunteering. Therefore, the PEC framework is not applied here to develop further hypotheses or test existing ones. For such tasks, it would have to be applied for each (group of) actor(s) likely to share similar contextual variables and actor characteristics.
Understanding actors’ boundary judgements on sustainability is important because they are often invoked to justify behavioural choices. Unveiling the way actors ‘bound’ sustainability problems, may help to gauge the likely effectiveness of policy interventions, and other institutional mechanisms, aiming to encourage learning and cognitive shifts, or motivational changes, towards behavioural change. Boundary judgements on sustainability reflect the weak/strong split in conceptualization that exists ever since the concept was introduced. Without reproducing the extensive literature, of relevance here is that weak sustainability claims that natural capital may be depleted, as long as it is replaceable by man-made capital, or substitutes can be generated through human interventions (including ‘function substitute’, e.g. recreational). For example, biodiversity does not have an intrinsic value, and its partial destruction may be compensated through nature development elsewhere, or man-made capital for function reproduction.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 8 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 1: Key actor characteristics and mechanisms for behavioural change
The strong sustainability concept maintains that “the stable functioning of Earth systems - including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles - is a prerequisite for a thriving global society” (Griggs et al, 2013:305). This means that in the process of human development, societies should not alter the ecosphere (which includes fauna, flora, the atmosphere, water and soil quality and availability) to the extent that poses risks to human and non-human life, or disrupts evolutionary processes irreversibly. The economy is seen as an element of society, which in turn is seen as an element in the global eco-geosphere. Strong sustainability considers that human development needs to focus on poverty reduction, and on concepts of human wellbeing and health, rather than economic growth for the sake of it (Neumayer, 2013).
A strong sustainability approach requires new roles and responsibilities for all kinds of societal actors. However, not all actors are willing or capable to adopt holistic and strong conceptualizations, because of motivational factors (values, interests/objectives) and/or cognitive factors (e.g. background knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and the ability or time to engage in the cognitive processing of any incoming information and persuasive messages). Therefore, one can expect actors to emphasize sustainability aspects differently, and even ‘short-list’ those that best align to their motivational and cognitive landscapes.
As Figure 1 suggests, the actor characteristics of motivations and cognitions are connected; they typically shape each other. Such processes can be influenced by the institutional freedom actors have in defining sustainability. E.g., environmental non-governmental organizations have a low institutional freedom, having to observe the ecological responsibilities set in their organizational statutes. In the case of businesses, they often enjoy large institutional freedom in defining and operationalizing the sustainability aspects on which they wish to concentrate (if at all). However, this freedom many be restricted
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 9 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
when regulations, such as concessions, require them to implement particular operationalisations of sustainability. Consequently, four key (groups of) factors are considered in the PEC framework, as shaping the actors’ boundary judgments on sustainability: cognitions (knowledge available and its interpretation; beliefs; attitudes); motivations (interests, objectives, values); conceptualization of sustainability, and the institutional freedom available for this.
An important question emerging, which is of high interest for DOC is: how can boundary judgments be altered through multi-actor and institutional interactions? The most obvious mechanism is that of learning. The PEC framework uses the term ‘persuasion’, in acknowledgement of the interactions between motivations (perceived interests, hierarchies of objectives and values) and cognitions. Psychologists define persuasion as “the active and conscious effort to change attitudes through the transmission of a message” (Gazzaniga and Heatherton, 2003:435).
The psychology literature largely accepts, nevertheless, that behaviour cannot always be inferred from the exclusive study of motivations and cognitions (Gazzaniga and Heatherton, 2003; Kuhneman, 2012; Dillard and Pfau, 2002; Seiter and Gass, 2010). The structure of the situation in which the individual acts, the (potential) behaviour of other actors present in the operation environment, the expectations regarding how other actors would evaluate his behaviour, the material conditions in the action environment - all affect the behavioural choice of an individual. In addition, institutions, policies and rules are put in place to constrain certain undesirable behaviours, or to stimulate desirable ones. Lockton and colleagues have recently developed a theory (2009), referred to as the ‘Design with Intent Method’, which aims to generate socially desirable (e.g. environmentally friendly) behavioural changes in individuals.
They differentiate between three (classes of) mechanisms for influencing behaviour:
- “enabling desirable behaviour”, by making it easier for the user to engage in it as compared to the alternatives;
- “motivating behavioural change “by educating, incentivizing and changing attitudes”,
- “constraining mechanisms, which basically make the undesirable behavioural alternatives “difficult or impossible” (Lockton et al. 2009:3).
The PEC framework adopts this typology, but refers to the second category as ‘persuasion mechanisms’, for the reasons explained above. The arrows in Figure 1 indicate that all three mechanisms may influence boundary judgments on sustainability. Constraining mechanisms, such as legal specifications or organizational statutes, may offer stakeholders various degrees of freedom to conceptualize/operationalize sustainability. In this case, constraining mechanisms influence behaviour indirectly, by affecting the motivations and knowledge base underpinning behavioural choices. However, constraining interventions may also influence behaviours directly, when they affect actors’ resources (e.g. the application of fines, disclosure of undesirable business behaviours to clients) or powers (legal prescriptions against certain behaviours).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 10 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Enabling mechanisms may also be designed in ways that influence actors directly and positively, by offering financial inducements or non-material stimuli for behavioural change. It is possible that these lead actors to experience positive attitudes (therefore, cognitive changes), which may even reshuffle their hierarchy of values (experiencing, therefore, motivational changes when inducements/facilities become available). Therefore, enabling mechanisms might produce both direct behavioural changes and indirect ones, through changes in the boundary judgments regarding sustainability. Consequently, behavioural changes towards sustainable outcomes may be induced through three classes of mechanisms: constraining, persuading and enabling.
Research methods
Given the theoretical perspective chosen to address the research objective, two research methods were viewed as most suitable for data collection: interviews and the analysis of texts written by concessionaires as public submissions to DOC’s policy/planning documents before their adoption. In New Zealand, DOC consults with the preferred stakeholders (individual large businesses as tourism industry representatives, discretionarily) before draft documents are publicly notified and written submissions are invited (Dinica 2016b). Such consultations happen before ‘close doors’. Therefore, it is not possible to access information on concessionaires’ reactions to proposed policies for those who only engage in the process this way. Those not invited to pre-notification consultations can make (publicly available) written submissions. Summaries of concessionaire submissions on all three recently reviewed regional Conservation Management Strategies were reviewed for this paper: Otago, Southland Murihiku, and Canterbury Strategies (DOC, 2014c,d,e).
Interviews were carried out by phone, as concessionaires are spread throughout the country. Table 1 mentions the main features of the research participants (used as selection criteria). The interviews took 50-70 minutes to complete, were voice recorded and transcribed. Human Ethics Approval was issued in February 2016 by the university employing the author. Potential research participants were identified by using DOC’s database of tourism activities in PA, with links to concessionaires (http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/things-to-do/).
Table 1: Main characteristics of research participants
FIRM SIZE, CONCESSION TYPE, ACTIVITIES/FACILITIES R1 <5 staff; permit; mountaineering/climbing R2 30-40 staff; lease and licenses; boating and walk tours; catering and shops R3 20-35 staff; 2 licenses; guided kayaking R4 20 staff; lease; accommodation R5 50-750 staff; lease and licenses; ski resort R6 <20 staff; lease and license; accommodation; R7 <5 staff; 2 licenses; boating, guided walks R8 5-10 staff; 50 permits; guided walks and vehicle-based tours; owned by large European tour operator R9 <5 staff; permit; guided walks and vehicle-based tours
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 11 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Prospects for concessionaire volunteering and potential pitfalls: behavioural perspectives
By applying the PEC behavioural framework to interpret DOC’s strategy towards volunteering, it is clear that the Department overemphasizes the importance of persuasion mechanisms. Their outcomes models suggest that DOC accepts having a transition role to play, by supporting target groups through ‘enabling mechanisms’, by providing funds and some resources (like meeting space) for voluntary work. However, the funding policy does not target concessionaires, specifically, while the four-year objective for their contribution is quite ambitious23. Empirical analyses indicate that cognitive factors are more complex than assumed in DOC’ outcomes flowcharts, which focus on know-how transfer and impressing through “conservation stories”. Crucial cognitive factors include attitudes regarding appropriate financial arrangements to fund conservation for the future (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6; R9), and beliefs regarding the roles of various actors in society (R2, R4, R5, R6).
The next two sub-sections below report on the empirical findings regarding the relative roles of motivational and cognitive factors in generating the desired behavioural changes. They also reflect on how these may be influenced by the boundary judgements on sustainability that actors hold and recognize in DOC’s discourses. Section 5.3 focuses on the role of resources and powers (informal/formal) available to both DOC and concessionaires. The importance of boundary judgements on sustainability
The Department aims to permanently change the behaviour of businesses, by transforming them in active conservation agents. This objective is consistent with strong sustainability conceptualizations, insofar all societal actors are to be actively involved, including the Department. Indeed, the 1987 Conservation Act sets a mandate for DOC that is consistent with strong sustainability conceptualizations, given the legally prescribed hierarchy of management objectives. However, based on pressures from neoliberal governments, DOC attempts to change others ‘for the better’, while significantly shifting its priorities compared to its legal mandate. By fully adopting the weak sustainability neo-liberal discourse, DOC risks losing its credibility with important stakeholders, including some concessionaires. Illustrations of weak sustainability discourses are many, but among others, it is worth mentioning:
“Conservation protects our natural capital and delivers the infrastructure on which many of our key industries depend. (…) Conservation plays a critical role in supporting the New Zealand brand – the market advantage on which we and our producers rely”(DOC, 2015d:10);
2 Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1206/S00420/building-communities-through-volunteering.htm
3 Funds are allocated for work by community groups, NGOs and trusts, some of which may be concessionaires. For information on the projects funded between 2014-2018 and beneficiaries see: http://www.doc.govt.nz/get- involved/funding/doc-community-fund/
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 12 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
“Conservation (…) is the ‘engine room’ of New Zealand’s tourism industry and drives our global reputation. Our environmental credentials differentiate New Zealand’s primary produce exports in a very competitive world (…) Removing wilding pines will not only benefit native biodiversity but will free up areas of farmland and improve water quality and quantity – so again, it’s a win-win for all” (DOC, 2015e:5).
DOC’s new rhetoric undermines the moral high ground on which it views itself standing and inspiring towards major societal mindset shifts. Despite strenuous attempts to create win- win perceptions, DOC may encounter difficulties in selling the message to those able to foresee the skewed distributions of the costs and benefits of volunteering. Numerous societal actors, including concessionaires, have already expressed a range of reactions, from confusion to dismay, at the adoption of weak sustainability discourses, and do not view favourably the political interferences on DOC’s operational responsibilities, as defined by law.
More than one thousand submissions were received on the draft Conservation Strategies for the three South island regions (DOC, 2014c, d,e). While Strategies are legally valid only for 10 years, 50 year time horizons were imposed on them, with similar texts on “Visions for 2065” such as: “The communities of Southland Murihiku understand that conservation is essential to the economic, cultural, social and environmental wellbeing, of both the region and New Zealand.” (DOC, 2014d:16). Most submitters, except for a share of businesses, rejected such wordings. DOC gave consistently dismissive feedback:
“Reject. In the 1987 Conservation Act Section 6, ‘functions…’ are not hierarchical”; “Reject. Whatever is thought about it [the Vision], it is the DOC (now “national longer-term”) vision and is part of the national CMS template in setting the scene for the 2064 CMS vision” (DOC, 2014e).
Many submitters, including some concessionaires, were very critical on DOC’s changing roles and over-reliance on volunteering:
“DOC has to do more than ‘encourage’, ‘foster’, ‘contribute to’, ‘work with others’ – commit to very little. Difficult to report on encouragement and contribution to”; “Community can support DOC, not other way round. Community does not have general overview, expertize or knowledge to prioritize. What happens if there is no one to work with?”; “DOC cannot foist its responsibilities onto communities and businesses. Severe limitations and issues with volunteerism and business partnership projects (ongoing funding and exhaustion)”; “DOC should lead” (DOC, 2014e).
Some DOC responses were:
“The national message from DOC is that it cannot be expected, nor is it likely to be resourced to undertake all required conservation work. Sometimes the community does & will need to lead. “DOC should not ”over-commit itself to 'lead' action” (DOC, 2014e:114-116).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 13 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Most interviewed concessionaires offered similar reactions to DOC’s goal that by 2065 “more conservation will be achieved by others“, hence shifting significant state responsibilities to others:
“Conservation is a governmental responsibility. DOC’s role is to look after National Parks. The role of concessionaires is to provide the public with nature experiences without damaging Parks. (…) The idea that more businesses will do voluntary work is totally misguided” (R4).
“if the volunteering is about enhancing the resources already in place [with DOC], it’s a good thing. But if it was replacing DOC staff with commercial operators to get better bang for their buck, then it’s a really bad move.“ (R3)
Concessionaires already holding strong conceptualizations of sustainability may become negatively motivated by DOC’s weak sustainability discourses, expressing this through behaviours that avoid work/partnerships with DOC involvement (R1; R2; R3; R4; R5; R7). The literature on voluntary instruments has long pointed out that branding quality and the reputational benefits associated with the leading authority and/or the particular voluntary scheme are important. Brands and agreements viewed as too permissive (through large “club size “and “overcrowding“) or unambitious are likely to lose credibility and membership (Prakash and Potoski, 2007).
Cognitive and motivational factors: the need for more sophisticated and diverse persuasion and enabling mechanisms
Regarding cognitive factors, an important finding is that, while DOC prioritizes knowledge transfer, all respondents expect the technical and management expertise to come from DOC staff, now and in the future. Concessionaires view themselves as small cogs in an immense machinery only DOC can run. The complexity and long timeframes associated with most conservation and infrastructural construction/maintenance responsibilities are viewed as beyond the cognitive and resources abilities of any volunteering group, even when more complex multi-stakeholder partnerships are considered:
“Take the example of killing pine trees, which DOC takes care of. You need a multigenerational programme (…). It’s DOC’s role to look after the long term, the things we are going to enjoy, so just providing information and facilitation roles will not work.” (R4)
All respondents prefer to continue doing work they already master, or for which no knowledge transfer is needed, because of time constraints. The activities in which the respondents prefer to engage fit with the work done under concessions, or helpful towards enhancing their products: cleaning-up rubbish, pest trapping, iconic fauna conservation, basic maintenance of huts and tracks, search and rescue, or fire-fighting. As some respondents put it, “people do not volunteer because DOC needs them to do things they have no money for” (R1); they want to give back to the community through things they enjoy doing and feel good about it (R1; R9); institutionalizing volunteering “takes the ‘feel good’ out of the experience” (R9). Others expressed outrage at the idea that volunteering is
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 14 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies expected, and subjected to quantitative targets (R2). Only one concessionaire appeared ready to learn more, extending the skills of his staff, but provided that there is a “win-win”, i.e. clear private benefits are forthcoming (R8).
In contrast, R1 explained he was actually a provider of technical expertise, until DOC’s restructurings upset local relationships through centralization. Being licensed for guided alpine climbing, he offered free advice to DOC rangers and its independent visitors on technical aspects of climbing, and updates on terrain conditions. He also offered free presentations on landscape interpretation and mountaineering to DOC’s visitors annually.
Further, some interesting findings emerge regarding what motivates respondents to engage in VM, with or without DOC, and what do they see as volunteering barriers. First, several respondents considered that they are “forced” to volunteer, due to DOC’s negligence, policies, or concession provisions. This negatively motivates them to do extra work.
“Most concessionaires with leases voluntarily look after wider areas because the Department does not. Volunteering has been actually enforced on us. (…) If you talk to them [DOC] they will say this is not a priority”. (R2)
R2 manages invasive flora and fauna species (including rats) which are not recognized in DOC’s Conservation Strategy as (priority) pests. Consequently, the work done by him and others in his situation is not acknowledged as volunteering. He finds it frustrating that DOC only profiles corporate sponsorships as business partnerships through media and website messages. R7 made a similar point, explaining that their business waited many years for a pest-trapping concession. They wanted to receive that not just for compliance, but also as formal acknowledgement/backing for their work, because the activity involves labour and donations from tourists. R7 is committed to continue using VM, drawing on intrinsic values, but would avoid DOC, if they can.
R5 argued that concessionaires with infrastructural investments, like wharfs, jetties, or those made by the ski company he works for, are obliged through concession provisions to make some facilities they built and operate available to independent visitors. He mentions how overcrowding occurs due to non-paying visitors, at “their carparks” and on the snow trails they build for paying clients. He views the company’s investments in such (temporary/permanent) infrastructures as” partly volunteering”. However, rather than this being officially counted as volunteering, his company would much prefer that they be allowed to charge a fee for all de-facto users. These are interesting perspectives on what should count as volunteering, which have not been found as examples in any DOC documents.
A second negative motivational factor refers to insufficient reciprocal trust with DOC staff. Many feel aggrieved by decades of poor treatment, claiming DOC had adopted an anti- commercial attitude for long, treating all concessionaires as undesirables. While respondents admit that there are some “bad apples” and many companies visiting PA with no concession (R8; R9), DOC fails to understand that many concessionaires love the Parks (R2, R3). Many forgo the opportunity to run more profitable businesses, like hotels in Auckland, because they enjoy being part of New Zealand’s socio-ecological fabric, and enjoy the happiness their clients experience when visiting nature (R2; R3; R4; R7).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 15 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
While most appreciate the post-2009 turn in DOC’s approach to PA commercialization, some argue that enhancing relationships with DOC is currently obstructed by politically- induced uncertainties on the Department’s future and its ability to implement the legal mandate properly (R1; R2; R4; R7). Interviewees reported to feel both frustrated with, and sympathetic towards DOC local staff, considering the restructurings. For example, R3 argued:
“All of us here find it a little bit discouraging to see the constant changes that are going on (…). You can see it on their faces – they just don’t know what’s going on. That’s the thing that gets me the most. You don’t find many people who are more passionate about what they do. They should be the ones who get really empowered to keep on making a difference.“
Likewise, R2 points towards restructurings for the difficulty to establish partnerships:
“In the early days relationships were warm, friendly (…). Now there is just dislike and distrust; they are hiding. Some rangers feel ashamed to work for DOC; they feel disheartened and lost. (…) Centralizing a lot of decision- making will save them money probably because they can discharge a lot of staff in regional offices. But problems are contextual”.
Three respondents argued that the main source of negative motivations is that DOC is a competitor for their activities. R7 contributes to a regional Trust engaged in volun-tourism towards pest control. The Trust relies on donations and sponsorships from the same individuals and corporations that DOC now targets for its own partnerships, creating an unproductive competition. Volun-tourists offer their time (and sometimes may cover some travel costs) but they do not pay for things like safety and conservation equipment (R5). Some consider that the supply by DOC of facilities at low costs to independent visitors (huts, shelters, and camping grounds) or no cost (track/wharf access) creates a situation of unfair competition with them, and nobody sponsors their competitor (R2, R5; R8). If DOC’s ‘independent visitors’ do not pay meaningful fees and are not envisaged for VM, these concessionaires do not wish to do more than what they see as ‘feel good’ activities (R2, R5; R8; R9). As suggested through the arrows in Figure 1, they seem to expect ‘enabling mechanisms’ that would have positive impacts both on their resources and motivations.
However, there are also concessionaires who, despite frustrations with DOC, will continue doing conservation work, driven by altruistic considerations and intrinsic values (R1; R3; R6; R7; R9). R3 explains their company has around 10.000 clients annually, mostly international, and aims to inspire visitors towards positive global environmental change. Further, R3 finds staff volunteering important, to cultivate a positive organizational culture; they want to lead by example in the region, because “Previously there was a fair bit of exploitation of the Abel Tasman for financial gain.” R7 was motivated by concerns with the disappearance of birds from the UNESCO South-West Wilderness Heritage. Later, their conservation successes were noticed by media nationwide, which increased their business’s standing in the community; but this is just a side-effect, enhancing volun-tourism and donations.
Finally, some concessionaires prefer volunteering for private land-owners or Trusts. R8 reported that they donate through/for business partners, because the protected icon species are tour attractions (kiwis; yellow-eyed penguins; Hector dolphins). While donations
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 16 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies are small and irregular, this enhances their business relations. Volunteering through Trusts backed by philanthropic donors is preferred by some respondents because “they have all the controls in place and” (R3), especially sound health and safety arrangements, equipment, expertize, detailed work-plans, and are locally-driven, which is important for business standing in the community (R3; R7). Resources and power: potential constraining and enabling mechanisms
Based on the PEC framework, irrespective of actors’ cognitions and motivations, their availability of resources and the balance of power experienced in relation to the implementing agency will most likely influence their willingness/ability to engage in behavioural change. Institutionalizing VM can lead to important changes in the balance of powers between concessionaires and DOC. Such changes may happen in both directions, while their outcomes, in terms of the quality PA care, are hard to predict, because the balance of power may be differ across concessionaire types and groups. This section maps several major concerns that need close monitoring in the coming years.
First, there are concerns that the more the Department is under financial pressure, the more it may use considerations on the extent and quality of VM engagement by concessionaires when approving and reissuing concessions, and monitoring concessionaire compliance. Some concessionaires expressed concern that DOC’s expectations on VM engagement may be insensitive to the seasonality of income in this industry, and global economic vulnerabilities (DOC, 2014d; R9). One operator fears that DOC “will become in the future more like the Police, and poor baggers like me, will have to do all their conservation work or get kicked out of the Park” (R2). Will those who do not volunteer according to the Department’s expectations be monitored more closely? Will a systematically generous concessionaire be still monitored, and have contractual conditions enforced, in case on non- compliance with environmental management and other contractual provisions? As long as monitoring and enforcement remain ‘in-house‘ responsibilities for DOC, this raises questions of how to mitigate the risks of unethical trade-offs between voluntary and contractual commitments, distorting the playing-field among businesses.
Another concern is that some concessionaires may leverage their potential power on DOC when concession fees are set, by negotiating more favourable terms in exchange for VM pledges. Currently, only a few activity types are subject to publicly disclosed and uniform charges (mainly low-impact guided tours). Concession fees associated with licenses and leases are typically confidential. In these cases, some concessionaires may have bargaining power, especially when they enjoy political influence. Attempts at such trade-offs have already been signalled on the West Coast on the South Island (R6), but it is unclear what the outcome was. However, the opposite may happen for some concessionaires with less influence on DOC.
Concession fees and other regulatory aspects stemming in PA management instruments influence the bankability and profitability of businesses (like the number of clients, contract length, and operation timing limitations). These regulatory aspects may work as constraining mechanisms on operators (see Figure 1), disempowering (through diminishing income) and de-motivating them towards volunteering (R2; R4; R7; R8; R9). DOC has started increasing concession fees for contracts up for revision (every 3-5 years; less frequent for
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 17 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
leases). In its four-year budget plan, DOC aims to “Increase revenue from concessions, leases and licences by 3%” (DOC, 2015b:22) annually, until 2020. Several respondents argued that DOC fails to appreciate that being a profitable and bankable business in PA is hard (R2; R3; R5; R7; R9).
Concessionaires are particularly unhappy with the wide historic differences in fee levels. This and previous research (Dinica, 2016a) indicates that concession fees vary between 1.75% to 7.5%. Fees seem to be lower for larger businesses, and leases with old contracts. Respondents expressed concern also with the consequences of higher commercialization for competition in PA, making it harder for them to pass the extra concession fees and VM costs to clients (DOC, 2014d; R2; R9).
Two main policy options were suggested towards a more level-playing field across concessionaires and higher conservation gains. Some argued that a uniform and transparent concession fee (at least for companies offering the same facilities/activities) would help. Because this would: a) communicate to clients the value of their contribution to DOC; b) make it easier for clients to compare prices across companies and appreciate any additional environmental work; b) help clients decide how much to donate on top of the concession fee they see on their receipt (R3; R7). In addition, several concessionaires suggested inserting some nature enhancement provisions in all concessions, while leaving other types of work/projects for volunteering (R1, R3, R7; R9). In their view, such a policy would preserve the positive motivations of those who already volunteer and want to ‘feel good’ rather than ‘feel forced’ towards volunteering. Those who do not wish to volunteer “could opt-out” at the time of contract signing/review, “by paying additional concession fees” (R9).
Other resource-related factors were often mentioned as obstacles towards volunteering. One refers to uncertainties on health and safety arrangements for labour volunteering and legal liabilities (R3; R4; R5; R7). Two options being discussed are to require that private insurance be paid by volunteers, or to place insurance responsibilities on businesses and Trusts/NGOs. The issue was also raised frequently in submissions for the regional conservation strategies, without a clear resolution, as DOC does not seem to accept legal liability (DOC, 2014c,d,e). One concessionaire, using both staff and volun-tourists for pest trapping and facilities/huts maintenance for more than 10 years mentioned that if new rules would make her business liable for accidents during volunteering she would “drop this volunteering thing like a hot rock” (R7). Another respondent is concerned with who will do the drug and alcohol testing of volunteers, which is compulsory for most staff operating in PA (R5).
Another resource-related factor regards the need for compulsory training and certification for some tasks, like using a chainsaw. Operations like cutting and removing wild pines, track construction and maintenance, require training and certification that currently must be paid by volunteers (R7). One submitter to the Canterbury Strategy draft asked DOC to insert provisions stating that DOC will: “support volunteers to meet health and safety requirements by supplying and funding appropriate training and certification". DOC‘s response was: “Reject. This is an operational matter and a requirement of any work on Public Conservation Land, by DOC or volunteers“ (DOC, 2014e:83). Some argued this is why not much should be expected from volun-tourism other than picking-up rubbish, pest trapping, and tree planting (R3; R5).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 18 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
In addition, some concessionaires raised the issue of travel and accommodation costs. One concessionaire has all staff residing in Auckland, while most tours are located in the South Island (R8). He prefers to improve the PA where he works, but is unwilling to pay the flight costs to Queenstown. Besides, work is often needed in remote PA regions, requiring expensive helicopter or boat rides. This issue was also raised by others. The Trust engaged in volun-tourism, to which R7 contributes, was considering terminating the memorandum of understanding with DOC due to DOC’s refusal to build public huts for their regular volun- tourists (having to tent in harsh whether) and the “politics of helicopter use”. Hut construction is limited and prescribed in management plans, which are updates every 10 years or more. The problem of missing or unaffordable accommodation (with high prices in monopoly contexts) and expensive helicopter transfers is significant, and should not be underestimated. The magnitude of the problem will increase, as DOC plans to stop maintaining the backcountry/remote tracks and huts, to invest its budgetary allocations on enhancing Icon and Gateway destinations for international tourists.
This overview indicates that there are concerns regarding how DOC may behave in the future, and its choice or ability to exercise formal or informal constraints on concessionaires, with possible negative implications for volunteering. However, there are also serious concerns regarding how concessionaires may take advantage of the fact that neo-liberal governments have been disempowering DOC through budget and staff cuts, and an inability to insert responsibilities for nature enhancement in concessions. Comments made by some concessionaires through submissions and interviews suggest that some businesses view volunteering as a favour to DOC that can be done in exchange for private benefits, such as preferential or monopoly access to facilities/huts under high demand, and/or changes to policy and planning documents that enhance their business opportunities. R1 was also concerned with such scenarios, asking:
“How many [concessionaires] would be interested in doing volunteering in an altruistic sort of way? That may be limited“.
Volunteering in exchange for private benefits
Concessionaires Heliworks Queenstown Helicopters and Southern Lakes Helicopters wrote in their submission on the Canterbury Strategy draft that they support the objectives for
“conservation gains from more business partnerships”, as long as “DOC will actively participate in territorial authority district plan reviews with the aim of reducing the regulatory duplication on activities undertaken on Public Conservation land (e.g. Queenstown District Council and need for consent for aircraft landings)” (DOC, 2014e:93).
A similar text was submitted for the Otago Conservation Strategy draft (DOC, 2014c:251). This is basically a request to DOC to use its role as authority entitled to make submissions on (or to veto) the design of regional planning tools, through which local/regional authorities implement the 1991 Resource Management Act, based on which issue resource consents for landings/take-offs are issued. The Department’s response was “Accept” (DOC, 2014e:93). Likewise, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) wrote in their submission for the Canterbury Strategy drafts that:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 19 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
“AOPA is keen to develop partnerships with DOC but this is not possible under the guidelines in policies 3.5.1 to 3.5.12 and Map 4”. Those provisions aimed to restrict landings; the request was to “Re-write, along with an addition to Appendix 13, so that fixed-wing aircraft take-offs and landings can occur on public conservation land for recreational purposes.” AOP also provided DOC with “A 2-page text that entirely focuses on recreational fixed- wing aircraft, (…) and suggests conditions for concessions” (DOC, 2014e:287- 288).
A similar submission was put by AOPA for the Southland Murikuhu Strategy (DOC, 2014d:45). Other concessionaires appear equally ready to engage in VM, if their labour and resources are used towards infrastructures, they can benefit from:
“Allowing mountain biking on a number of tracks in Fiordland National Park will spread numbers over a wider area and reduce potential bottlenecks and user conflict. There are opportunities for DOC to form partnerships with the Fiordland Trails Trust and Te Anau Cycling Incorporated in the construction or maintenance of facilities”(DOC, 2014d:54).
Te Anau Cycling Inc also wrote that extending mountain biking infrastructure in Fiordland national park will increase support from them and their clients “for conservation activities, e.g. trapping” (DOC, 2014d:55). Further, the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association asked DOC in their submission to the Canterbury Strategy draft to
“Include a policy specifically supporting and encouraging freedom camping on public conservation land. Should include a commitment to reviewing all currently prohibited and restricted sites (…) NZMCA members represent a largely untapped resource of potential conservation volunteers who could engage at all levels of projects. (…) Explicitly recognise engagement with NZMCA members in objectives 1.5.4.2, 4.3 and 4.5” (DOC, 2014e:208).
Several interviewees also highlighted the importance of direct benefits in exchange for volunteering (R2; R4; R5; R8). The highest expectations were set by R8, who is unhappy that concessionaires cannot book beds in public huts along some iconic Great Walk tracks, like the Kepler Track. He would consider involving his staff in learning how to build and maintain hiking and mountain-biking tracks, provided they are selected to manage such huts or the commercial access to such infrastructures. Likewise, they would like to see some PA zoning and activity restrictions lifted, to arrange client backpacks’ and equipment transport, to make guided trips more comfortable. He explains that
“If we can get a closer and easier relationship with DOC, from a business perspective, yes, it would be easier to donate or volunteer. At this stage I have the feeling this is not a win-win relationship. (…) That’s why we are not doing anything with DOC; we are doing things with business partners” (R8).
The public management and democratic governance literatures on co-production offer abundant empirical evidence that private actors involved in service delivery activities often seek political influence and power. For example, Mitlin argues that volunteers for co-
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 20 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
production aim” to secure effective relations with state institutions that address both immediate basic needs and enable them to negotiate for greater benefits“ (2008:339). This was found to be the case with voluntary labour contributions from citizens for infrastructural urban sewerage construction in the slums of Brazil. Concluding reflections and recommendations for further research
This paper applied a behavioural approach to reflect on the prospects for institutionalizing VM among tourism concessionaires in New Zealand’s PA. Several major themes emerge from interviews and document analysis. First, most concessionaires included in analysis consider that, under the current political neo-liberal prescriptions, DOC is going too far by expecting them to lead (or be part of groups leading) biodiversity, infrastructural and environmental management projects. Only a few agree their staff could do more and/or would involve/enhance the role of volun-tourists through labour or donations (R3; R7; R8). Their arguments draw on views regarding the role of the state in society. All respondents prefer that the government used other financial tools, such as extended user-fees, PA entry fees, or taxes on foreign visitors to enable DOC implement its statutory responsibilities. Increasing both their concession fees and volunteering expectations is viewed as unfair, in the context the current uneven playing field among concessionaires, and no new responsibilities for independent (especially foreign) visitors.
Further, DOC’s strategy to focus on persuasion mechanisms through know-how transfer, and motivational build-up appears at best naive (R2; R3) or “optimistic“ (R1; R7; R9); but it was also assessed as “misguided“ (R4), unfeasible and most likely ineffectual (R6), even dangerous for the public (R5). Persuasion may pull some disengaged concessionaires ‘over the line’, but most companies are unlikely to allocate resources to learn skills that are too different from their mainstream activities/expertize, or do not contribute to their business. Long-term PA management is viewed as too complex, and requiring a level of continuity, expertise and leadership that only DOC can provide. Furthermore, the effectiveness of persuasion mechanisms could be undermined by DOC’s neo-liberal discourses promoting weak sustainability rationales for conservation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment also expressed concerns that DOC’s approach to “conservation for prosperity“ could come at the expense of “conservation for posterity“ (PCE, 2011).
Some concessionaires still experience resentment towards DOC, requiring careful relationship management by local staff. However, the most important obstacles towards VM, and potential ‘slippery areas‘ with risks of corruption, are not motivational, but in the realm of resources and the balance of powers between DOC and concessionaires. DOC seems unwilling to accept health and safety responsibilities for volunteers, and pay for their compulsory training. Some doubt that, if done properly, volunteering will cost DOC less than if its service delivery responsibilities were retained (R5; R6; R9). The most serious concern, however, is that the institutionalization of volunteering may throw out of balance the relationships between three key aspects of governing PAs‘ sustainably (Dinica, 2016a):
- concessions‘ management: important here are the contractual provisions on environmental responsibilities; the fee levels/structures and their transparency; the contract length for activities/facilities with various environmental impacts; the contract renewal/re-issue conditions and processes; and the quality of monitoring
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 21 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
and compliance enforcement;
- the provisions on zoning and concessionaires’ access to PA parts of varying ecological sensitivity; this also refers to the quality of managing the cumulative environmental impacts at local and regional level;
- the balance between the rights and opportunities (especially infrastructural access) between non-commercial and commercial visitors to PA.
This research indicates there are concessionaires who will not hesitate to put pressure on DOC to elicit private benefits in exchange for voluntary contributions. Whether they will succeed depends on the integrity of DOC staff and political interferences. However, some recent developments are concerning. In April-May 2016, DOC decided to breach the limits for helicopter landings, envisaged in the Fiordland National Park Management Plan for an area where commercialization is already intense (around the Milford Sound). The Park Plan was adopted with wide public participation, but the political pressures exercised on DOC, next to Tourism Industry Association (TIANZ) pressures to relax zoning and access conditions, especially for aircraft, have been immense since 2009. DOC’s recent decision envisages an increase in “daily helicopter landings from 14 to 80 in a remote part of the Fiordland National Park“, to allow each concessionaire 10 extra trips daily (Radio New Zealand, 2016d). This breaches the Park Plan requirement for natural quietness in that zone, and intensifies conflicts with non-commercial visitors, especially alpine climbers. It is yet unclear whether a volunteering trade-off was negotiated for this.
Overall, the research presented here, based on the application of the PEC framework, suggests that DOC’s policy of reliance on persuasion mechanisms is misguided, and that the concessionaires willing to volunteer expect meaningful financial/material support. Next to such ‘enabling mechanisms’, some are willing to accept an enhanced deployment of constraining mechanisms. Including some nature enhancement provisions in concession contracts would lead to a more level playing-field among concessionaires; if these affected them proportionally, in terms of the required resources, this would help preserve the motivation of those embracing strong sustainability views, who currently feel abused/manipulated under DOC’s weak sustainability discourses. Persuasion mechanisms need also to be enhanced, to acknowledge and offer awards to those volunteering. Research suggests also that the range of voluntary activities expected by DOC is narrow, compared to what concessionaires view as volunteering.
In conclusion, it is important to continuously assess whether the benefits from institutionalizing VM among concessionaires will outweigh the pressures on natural resources likely to be exercised by some concessionaires and by the Department itself. The volunteering and commercialization intensification strategy is envisaged to unfold for decades. It is possible that elections will eventually result in a different government, capable or shifting DOC’s general direction. However, any shift is more likely to be partial/incremental rather than radical, given the already implemented reforms. This means that longitudinal studies are needed. Conley and Moote argue that
“Participant evaluations are used to identify stakeholder attitudes, opinions, and relationships (...). Single-shot surveys and interviews have been criticized for failing to capture changes in perspectives over time. Longitudinal studies can address this weakness
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 22 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies by surveying people before, during, and after they participate in a collaborative effort. This measures both participants’ opinions about the process and its outcomes, the way those opinions change (…) and the degree to which the collaborative process is responsible for those changes.” (Conley and Moote, 2003:380).
This study has limitations: it draws on written submissions and only nine interviews. Mixed methods should ideally be used combining a larger number of interviews, focus groups, surveys, perhaps even experimental designs to test the effectiveness of various options for donations and corporate sponsorships. Further, considering the comprehensive approach towards volunteering in New Zealand, future research may be conducted from a variety of theoretical lenses. Such as corporate social responsibilities (Coles et al, 2013); partnership formation and effectiveness (Laing et al, 2009; Pfueller et al, 2011; Selin, 2009), co- production theories (Mitlin, 2008), policy and governance evaluations from sustainability standpoint (Dinica, 2008; Dinica, 2016a); volun-tourism (Waithaka, 2012; Lorimer, 2010; McGehee, 2014); corporate sponsorship and public perceptions of this (Mowen and Graefe, 2002; Pitas et al, 2015); visitor donations (Alpizar et al, 2008); and voluntary agreement theories (Arora et al, 1996; Prakash & Potoski, 2006). This paper has adopted a behavioural lens that is useful to adopt in combination with all these theoretical approaches.
References
Alpizar, F., F. Carlsson, O. Johansson-Stenman. (2008). “Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica”, Journal of Public Economics 92:1047-1060.
Arora, Seema, and Timothy N. Cason. (1996). “Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed Environmental Regulations? Understanding Participation in EPA’s 33/50 Program.” Land Economics 72(4):413–32.
Bressers, H. (2006). “Implementing sustainable development: how to know what works, where, when and how”. In: W.M. Lafferty (ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development (pp. 284-318). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bressers, H., de Bruijn, T., Dinica V. (2007). ‘Integration and communication as central issues in Dutch negotiated agreements on industrial energy efficiency”, Environmental Policy and Governance (formerly European Environment) 17, 215-230
Coles, T., E. Fenclova, C. (.2013). “Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda” Tourism Management Perspectives 6:122-141
Conley, A, M.A. Moote. (2003). “Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management”, Society & Natural Resources, 16:5, 371-386.
Controller and Auditor General. (2016). “Department of conservation: Prioritising and partnering to manage biodiversity - Progress in responding to the Auditor-General’s recommendations”. Wellington.
Dillard, J.P. & M Pfau. (2002). The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 23 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Practice. Sage Publications.
Dinica, V. (2008). Challenges for sustainable tourism governance in the Netherlands. International Journal of Tourism Policy 1(4):335-352.
Dinica, V. (2013). “International sustainability agreements: are they politically influential for tourism governance innovations?” Tourism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(6): 663-676.
Dinica, V. (2014). “Competing societal and ecological demands for groundwater: boundary judgments and convergence mechanisms”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16:555–573.
Dinica, V. (2015a). “Governance of National Parks at the Crossroads: New Zealand’s Silent Reform”, Policy Quarterly 11(2):26-36. New Zealand. Available at: http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/cbfc897bd5b.pdf
Dinica, V. (2015b). “Understanding the role of behavioural change mechanisms in water resource conflicts - lessons from The Netherlands”, International Journal of Sustainable Society 7(3):241-265.
Dinica, V. (2016a) “Tourism concessions in National Parks: neo-liberal experiments for a Conservation Economy in New Zealand”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, forthcoming as part of special issue on Protected Area Sustainability. Available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669582.2015.1115512?journalCo de=rsus20#.VwGvQzG2Fl0
Dinica, V. (2016b). “Public engagement and sustainability: an analytical framework and approaches in New Zealand’s protected areas: Working paper, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies; currently under review for a special issue on Sustainable Public Management at Public Management Review journal.
DOC. (no date). “Concessions Contract: Lease and Licence Agreement’, viewed 05/05/2016 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/concessions/ applying-for-a-concession/pre-application-requirements/#contracts
DOC. (2009). Statement of Intent 2009–2012, Wellington. Accessed 30/03/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/statement- of-intent/statement-of-intent-%282009-2012%29.pdf
DOC. (2013a). Statement of Intent 2013-2017. Wellington.
DOC. (2013b). “The Department of Conservation's Strategic Direction”. Wellington. Retrieved 30/09/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/our-policies-and- plans/strategic-direction.
DOC. (2014a). “Briefing to the incoming Minister of Conservation”. Retrieved 27/10/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/publications/bim- 2014/briefing-to-incoming-minister-2014.pdf
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 24 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
DOC. (2014b). “South island: Conservation Management Strategies common Issues report – discussion of issues raised by submitters that were common across the draft Canterbury, Otago and southland Murihiku Conservation management strategies 2013”. Wellington.
DOC. (2014c). Draft Otago Conservation Management Strategy: Response to Submissions by Section”. Wellington. Retrieved 12/12/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/get- involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2011/otago-cms-consultation/
DOC. (2014d). Draft Southland Murihiku Conservation Management Strategy: Response to Submissions by Section”. Wellington. Retrieved 12/12/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2011/ southland-murihiku-cms-consultation/
DOC. (2014e). “Draft Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy: Response to Submissions by Section”. Wellington. Retrieved 12/12/2015 at http://www.doc.govt. nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all- consultations/2011/canterbury-cms-consultation/
DOC. (2015a). Conservation Management Strategy Otago: proposal submitted to New Zealand Conservation Authority. Wellington.
DOC. (2015b). Conservation Management Strategy Southland Murihiku: proposal submitted to New Zealand Conservation Authority. Wellington.
DOC. (2015c). Statement of Intent 2015-2019. Wellington.
DOC. (2015d). Annual Report 2015. Wellington. Retrieved 27/10/2015 at http://www.doc. govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/publications/doc-annual-report-2015.pdf
DOC. (2015e) “Four years plan budget”. Wellington. Retrieved 20/20/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/four-year-plan/doc-four-year-plan- 2015.pdf
Gazzaniga, M.S., and T.F. Heatherton. (2003). Mind, Brain and Behavior: Psychological Science, Norton & Company Inc.
Griggs, D., et al. (2013). Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow, Penguin Books.
Klok, P.J. (1991). An instrument theory for environmental policy. (in Dutch). University of Twente. Enschede.
Lockton, D., D. Harrison, T. Holley, N.A. Stanton. (2009). “Influencing Interaction: Development of the Design with Intent Method”. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont US, 26-29 April 2009.
Laing, J.H., D. Lee, S.A. Moore, A. Wegner, B. Weiler. (2009). “Advancing conceptual
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 25 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
understanding of partnerships between protected area agencies and the tourism industry: a postdisciplinary and multi-theoretical approach”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17:207–229.
Mitlin, D. (2008). “With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations”, Environment and Urbanization 20(2):339-360.
Lorimer, J. (2010). “International conservation ‘volunteering’ and the geographies of global environmental citizenship”, Political Geography 29:311-322.
McGehee, N.G. (2014). “Volunteer tourism: evolution, issues and futures”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(6):847-854.
Mowen, A. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2002). “Public attitudes toward the corporate sponsorships of public park agencies: The role of promotional activities and contractual conditions”, Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 1:31–48.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
New Zealand Government. (2012). “The business growth agenda progress report 2012: Building natural resources”. Wellington.
Ostrom, E. (1987). “An agenda for the study of institutions”, Public Choice 48(1):3-25.
PCE [Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment]. (2011). “Conservation for prosperity and posterity? Commercial use of the DOC estate”, Speech to Federated Mountain Clubs Conference ‘Forever Wild?’, 11 June 2011. Wellington.
Pitas, N.A., J.A. Mowen, T. Liechty, N. Trauntvein. (2015). “’Proceed with caution”: Public perceptions regarding corporate sponsorship of park and recreation services”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 33(4):1-15.
Pfueller, S.L., D. Lee, J. Laing. (2011). “Tourism partnerships in protected Areas: Exploring contributions to sustainability”, Environmental Management 48:734-749.
Prakash, A., M. Potoski. (2006). “Collective Action through Voluntary Environmental Programs”, Policy Studies Journal. 35(4): 773-792.
Radio New Zealand. (2016a). “New Zealand second most charitable country”. Available at http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/bites/296514/ new-zealand-second-most- charitable-country
Radio New Zealand. (2016b). “Fears DoC could close tracks”. Available at http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/299127/fears-doc-could-close-tracks
Radio New Zealand. (2016c). “Club gobsmacked over Official Information Act charge for chopper info”. Available at http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ checkpoint/audio/201800508/club-gobsmacked-over-oia-charge-for-chopper-info
Radio New Zealand. (2016d). “Anger over glacier chopper plan”. Available at
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 26 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/301157/anger-over-glacier-chopper-plan
Seiter, R.H. & J.S. Gass. (2010). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Selin, S. (2009). ‘Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(3-4):260-273.
Waithaka, J., M. Wong, J. Ranger, E.A. Halpenny. (2012) “Conserving biodiversity through Parks Canada Volunteer Programme”. Parks 18(2):64-75.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 27 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Navigating Evolving Global Trends in Financial Crime: a Tourism Focus
Verity Anne Greenwood
Macquarie University, Sydney, [email protected]
Key words: Fraud, Tourism, Corporate social responsibility (CSR), Risk management, Responsible trust
Introduction
Despite obvious links between tourism transactions and fraudulent behaviour by suppliers, important issues have been relatively neglected by researchers. From a tourism stakeholder perspective, fraud should not be viewed just as a necessary cost, but as a competitor for personal, governmental and corporate assets. Fundamental change is needed to effectively create a corporate environment in tourism, which can deal successfully with fraudulent behaviour associated with specific emerging global issues, weaknesses, problems, threats and opportunities relating to globalization, e-commerce, privacy and multiple jurisdictions.
Technology is the new conduit for exploiting financial crime opportunities in tourism. Online communications reach many more potential fraud victims than approaches to victims in person; it requires less direct effort from the offender and a lower risk of redress. Consequently, technology use in non-traditional partnerships, in the bypassing of regulatory controls and resources to fight fraud, provide corporate challenges in quantifying the true cost of fraud in tourism, particularly as the focus is usually on the direct financial loss (ACFE, 2015).
The tourism industry has both a self-interest and an obligation to effectively build protection against the ever-reaching impact of financial crime. Chameleon in its nature, fraud continues to permeate the global corporate tourism sector, relentlessly increasing in prevalence and in its gravity of impact. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) requires a proactive rather than a reactive move for identification of vulnerability and management of risk. An understanding of the theoretical and practical elements of the fraud framework provides an important tool to adopting ‘responsible trust’, knowledge and effective action to prevent, protect, mitigate or terminate acts of fraud. Such an understanding enhances good governance and promotes confidence within the tourism sector. Aims
The aims of this paper are: Firstly, to identify evolving global trends in financial crime that are impacting tourism stakeholders. Secondly, to identify both the complex nature of fraud in the corporate environment and key flaws in fraud detection efforts through analysis of global patterns and trends, and thirdly, to explore the true costs and detriments of fraud through technology and the important efficacy of building a culture of ethical governance in tourism. The final section addresses challenges in unpacking the new fraud diamond paradigm, and introduces steps to identify occupational deviance and fraud threats in the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 28 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies tourism industry. Method
First, the paper identifies specific emerging global financial crime issues, weaknesses, problems, threats and opportunities affecting the tourism sector. Discussion will centre on topics listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Emerging Global Financial Crime Trends affecting Tourism
EMERGING ISSUES EMERGING EMERGING THREATS EMERGING WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES
CYBERCRIME/E- Insufficient laws to Excessive Technology and COMMERCE/IDENTITY cover domestic and prosecution costs surveillance THEFT offshore development
MONEY Differing evidentiary Ease of doing Corporate structural, LAUNDERING/SECRET requirements business mindset COMMISSIONS globally opens up fraud operational, detection opportunities strategies
THIRD PARTY FRAUD/ Global partnerships to BRIBERY/CULTURAL fight fraud DIFFERENCES/ Offshore schemes Privacy issues MULTIJURISDICTIONAL CRIMES
Second, the paper considers the six cornerstones to understanding the complex nature of fraud, the six key flaws in fraud detection efforts and the analysis of global patterns and trends, with reference to the Corruptions Perception Index (Transparency International, 2015), OECD Convention (1997) and Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) global data (ACFE, 2015). The relevance of this Index to tourism is discussed.
Third, the paper explores the costs and detriments of fraud through technology, highlighting the relevance to tourism. Discussion will centre on corporate challenges in quantifying the true cost of fraud, particularly as the focus is usually on the direct financial loss. Topics for discussion include the costs of indirect losses, which come in the form of investigation, and recovery costs, civil litigation and fines, prosecution, implementation of compliance and/or monitoring programs (Greenwood and Dwyer, 2015) and diversion of organizational resources. Using theoretical concepts and recent cases, discussion will centre on the importance of ‘responsible trust’, knowledge, understanding and preparedness of an organisation in successfully protecting, mitigating and ending attacks from stealthy tools and sophisticated social engineering techniques (Hadnagy, 2011) utilised in cyber fraud. The paper considers the elements of the fraud triangle (being pressure, incentive and rationalization) (Cressey, 1953/1973), and argues that the inclusion of ‘capability’ (referring to an individual’s capability, that is, their personal traits) to create a new fraud diamond framework, as proposed by Wolfe and Hermanson (2004), should be reconsidered. It is argued that globalization, in particular its technology conduit, requires a new concept of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 29 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
‘capability’ within the fraud diamond framework. Transporting it from the previously described individual personality traits to be redefined as the ability to leverage technology to stretch globally, thereby increasing opportunity for financial crimes and, in the process, overcoming human intervention, fraud detection, vulnerability and fraud risk management.
A summary of the associated traits essential in the personality of a fraudster and the criteria for assessment of fraud potential in the tourism industry will be illustrated by a profile of financial crime schemes. These schemes have utilised technology as a veiled strategy for greed, market manipulation and misappropriation of funds through bribery, conspiracy, money laundering, capital flight and the shadow economy. Findings
The discussion and analysis in this paper indicates even the simplest flaw in corporate security and responsibility can have political, economic, social and cultural implications in a corporate tourism environment. The paper recognises that effective protection against the ever-reaching impact of fraud in the tourism industry requires an investment in technology and surveillance development, to overcome the weakest link in an organisation, its human infrastructure. This paper illustrates the ability to identify 'red flag' weaknesses, problems, capabilities and threats of occupational deviance and fraud, the widespread and costly nature of employee financial crime and the importance of ‘responsible trust’ as a fundamental feature of corporate responsibility in tourism.
Conclusion
This paper identifies the importance of ethical responsibility in tourism, the maintenance of an ethical ‘tone at the top’ and the ability to assess organizational culture and entity-wide risks when tailoring appropriate anti-fraud corporate policies. In its argument for recognition of the element of ‘capability’ within the new fraud diamond, this paper utilises specific tourism case studies to illustrate why this fourth element should be included and considered as vital when dealing with distinctive legal issues, due diligence, conflicts of interest and multi-faceted ethical concept decision-making in a global corporate tourism forum.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 30 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Key References
Cressey, D.R. (1953/1973) Other People’s Money- A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Patterson Smith, Montclair, New Jersey.
Greenwood, Verity A. and Dwyer, Larry (2015) ‘Consumer protection legislation: A neglected determinant of destination competitiveness? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 24, September, 2015.
Hadnagy, C. (2011) Social Engineering: The Art Of Human Hacking, Wiley Publishing Co., Indianapolis, USA.
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (‘OECD Convention). Retrieved 3.2.16 www.oecd.org/daf/anti- bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) (2015) The Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, ACFE, Austin, Texas.
Transparency International (2016) Corruption Perceptions Index 2015, Transparency International, Sydney, Australia.
Wolfe, D.T and Hermanson, D. R (2004) ‘The Fraud Diamond: Considering the Four Elements of Fraud; The CPA Journal, New York State Society of CPA, New York, USA.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 31 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
In Search of a New Mindset to Underpin Tourism Development
Larry Dwyer & Verity Anne Greenwood
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Griffith University, Australia and University of NSW, Australia, [email protected]
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, [email protected]
Key words: Tourism stakeholders, planning, values, sustainability, responsibility,
Background/Introduction
Despite widespread recognition of the importance of all tourism stakeholders adopting sustainability attitudes and practices, with a huge descriptive and prescriptive literature highlighting ‘best practice’, things seem to be getting worse. While business operators and destination managers seek ways of expanding tourism, there is growing evidence that its continued expansion is now producing diminishing returns for providers and host communities that rely on volume growth to compensate for yield declines, as well as generating increasingly adverse social and environmental costs (TII, 2012). We have reached a fork in the road - - -
The Road to Decline (Pollock, 2012) involves ‘business as usual’, ‘saluting while the ship sinks’. Given the forces that underpin continued tourism growth, the ‘business as usual’ approach to tourism development can be expected to lead to more adverse environmental and social impacts. Despite the adoption of sustainability practices worldwide, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010), Triple Bottom Line Reporting (Dwyer, 2005), and more recently Shared Corporate Value (Porter and Kramer, 2012), there is no indication that tourism’s problems globally are being solved. It is argued that current corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility efforts are doing no more than inching firms toward reducing their negative impacts, and focusing on becoming ‘less unsustainable’ while overlooking the need to restore and rejuvenate, or move towards becoming ‘‘more sustainable (Ehrenfeld, 2008). Others argue that in many cases, firms espouse these principles but do not apply them in any serious way (Pollock, 2015). Even if a growing proportion of tourism operators were each to reduce the size of their negative social and environmental impacts, the expansion of tourism globally means that the absolute volume of negative impacts will continue to increase. We have every reason to be sceptical that widespread serious adoption of these practices will occur while current modes of thinking prevail.
In contrast, the Road to Rejuvenation (Pollock, 2012) involves a more serious effort on the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 32 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
part of all tourism stakeholders to adopt ‘sustainability’ practices. This road is reserved for those stakeholders who have a different mindset from that which has dominated tourism firm strategies, destination planning and tourism policy. Many doubt that we can truly achieve a global tourism industry that develops sustainably while stakeholders think and attempt to implement strategies within the narrow box of the standard paradigm (Mackay and Sisodia, 2014). In the view of its critics, initiatives to promote the implementation of more sustainable operations in tourism, will not suffice to reverse the ‘road to decline’ along which tourism is travelling given the current paradigm that is the mindset of major stakeholder groups. The problem as many critics see it is that many or most of the initiatives associated with sustainable practices operate within the same mindset or ‘paradigm’ that is responsible for ongoing generation of the adverse impacts in the first place. The critics’ plea is for tourism stakeholders to expose the unexamined assumptions that have guided their behaviour and to take more responsibility for all the stakeholders affected by their actions. In effect, the arguments equate to a plea for a paradigm shift (Kuhn 1974) whereby a new “Sustainability Model” replaces the mindset that underpins the destructive practices associated with tourism growth. Aims
The aims of this paper are: First, to identify key characteristics of the current mindset responsible for increasing costs (private and public) associated with tourism industry expansion globally (Road to Decline). Secondly, to identify common elements of an alternative paradigm, contrasting its features with those of the established paradigm (Road to Rejuvenation); and third to discuss the implications of the new mindset for the attitudes and behaviour of major stakeholders in tourism. The final section addresses some challenges associated with bringing about attitude change and with implementing strategies for tourism development consistent with the new paradigm, as well as formulation of a research agenda.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 33 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Method
The method involves three main steps
First, the paper identifies two sets of beliefs that guide stakeholder thinking and action regarding tourism. Without implying that all tourism stakeholders adhere to all elements of a particular mindset (which is not the case), characteristic elements of each are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Two mindsets underpinning tourism development
ESTABLISHED MINDSET NEW MINDSET
ANTHROPOCENTRIC ETHIC Environmental Ethic
SHAREHOLDER ORIENTATION Stakeholder Orientation
GROWTH/EXPLOITATION Protection
PRODUCT People
PRICE Value
SPACE Place
PROMOTION BY FLOODLIGHT Promotion by Searchlight
Second, the paper then considers each element of each mindset in turn and the implications for sustainable tourism development by key tourism stakeholder groups. The key stakeholder groups are Operators, Tourists, Government and the Host Community. Each stakeholder group identifies a set of attitudes and values that characterises responsible conduct.
Third, the paper addresses the challenges involved in stakeholder transition to a new mindset. On a Bottom up scenario, change will come from a collective effort conducted at the grassroots in communities where tourism hosts commit to ensuring that their economic activity benefits all stakeholders. On a Top down scenario operators become effective agents of change and stewards of all that the local community value. Government leadership will play an important role in promoting new operator and consumer values. Community leadership can promote importance of host range of responsibilities and articulating community vision.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 34 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Results
The analysis provides a compelling case for believing that the established mindset on which tourism development is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with best business practice and its consequences for action are inconsistent with the values and needs of people globally. New ways of thinking are required if tourism is to develop sustainability with positive contribution to peoples’ quality of life. The paper attempts to build a profile of: the responsible operator, the responsible tourist, the responsible government and the responsible host. Conclusion
The arguments represent early steps towards creating an alternative mindset that can support tourism development in the future. Some positive trends are evident e.g. changing consumer values and changing operator values. Consistent with these changing values tourism needs a change of ‘paradigm’. Different elements of the new paradigm have relevance for different tourism stakeholders. Only if all stakeholder groups act consistently based on the identified values will initiatives such as CSR and TBL be successful over the longer term be compatible with sustainable tourism and improved quality of life for all tourism stakeholders.
Key References
Dwyer L. (2005) ‘Relevance of Triple Bottom Line Reporting to Achievement of Sustainable Tourism: a Scoping Study’ Tourism Review International, Vol. 9, No. 1 pp 79-94.
Ehrenfeld John R (2008) Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Our Consumer Culture, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.1-7.
Mackay J., and R. Sisodia (2014) Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business, Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Pollock, A. (2012). Conscious Travel: Signposts Towards a New Model for Tourism. Contribution to the 2nd UNWTO Ethics and Tourism Congress Conscious Tourism for a New Era, September 12th, Quito.
Pollock, A. (2015) Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism The Conscious Travel Approach TIPSE Tourism, Innovation Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011) ‘Creating shared value’ Harvard Business Review, 89 (1/2), pp.62-77.
Tourism Intelligence International (TII) (2012) The Paradigm Shift in Travel and Tourism: win or die, new rules for competitive success, Mini Market Intelligence Brief, www.tourism-intelligence.com
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 35 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Examining Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism: The Sharing Economy and It’s Values and Regulation
Stephen Wearing & Kevin Lyons
University of Technology Sydney, [email protected]
University or Newcastle, [email protected]
Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility, Sharing Economy, Regulation, Consumer Culture, Neoliberalism
Abstract
One of the biggest challenges facing the tourism industry and policy makers is the emerging and fast growing ‘sharing economy’. Keeping abreast of this disruptive but potentially transformative phenomenon has been challenging for industry, governments and researchers alike. The ‘sharing economy’ describes a new economic paradigm driven by technology, consumer awareness and social commerce – particularly through web communities, and can be thought of as sharing, lending, renting and swapping redefined through digital technology and peer communities. Intense debates around the impacts of the sharing economy on the tourism industry converge around issues such as consumer welfare, economic development, equitable competition, and innovation and change. Much of this conjecture coalesces around the relative merits and impacts of a raft of potential regulatory measures that might be applied to businesses operating in the sharing economy and its integration into existing business models in tourism.
The challenges brought by this innovation raise questions about how the largely self- regulating principles of corporate social responsibility and its neoliberalist consumer culture values can be reconciled with more collectivist values promoted by some established tourism firms to protect consumers and incumbent industries – an equally valid example of CSR in action. Ultimately, the question of whether the corporate social responsibility embedded in the actions of incumbents working collaboratively to protect the vulnerabilities of their own enterprises can be reconciled with the tourism sharing economy operators. Who see such action as protectionism that ultimately stands in the way of corporate socially responsible services that are convenient to consumers and that provide opportunities for social and environmental benefits to local communities? The paper concludes by exploring how compromises have begun to emerge in the context of tourism.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 36 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Introduction
One of the biggest challenges facing the tourism industry and policy makers is the emerging and fast growing ‘sharing economy’. Keeping abreast of this disruptive but potentially transformative phenomenon has been challenging for industry, governments and researchers alike. The ‘sharing economy’ describes a new economic paradigm driven by technology, consumer awareness and social commerce – particularly through web communities, and can be thought of as sharing, lending, renting and swapping redefined through digital technology and peer communities (Miller, 2015). Intense debates around the impacts of the sharing economy on the tourism industry converge around issues such as consumer welfare, economic development, equitable competition, and innovation and change. Much of this conjecture coalesces around the relative merits of a raft of potential regulatory measures that might be applied to businesses operating in the sharing economy.
The challenges brought by this new innovation raise questions about how the largely self- regulating principles of corporate social responsibility (Vogel, 2010), and its neoliberalist consumer culture values (Shamir, 2008; Reich, 2007), can be reconciled with more collectivist values promoted by some established tourism firms to protect consumers and incumbent industries – an equally valid example of CSR in action.
We explore how major players in the tourism sharing economy draw upon a neoliberal interpretation of CSR which values consumerism and the culture that supports it. Such a perspective suggests the social and environmental value it makes available to consumers is stifled under the conditions of over-regulation. We then explore how a collective, regulatory approach designed to protect consumers and incumbents from the socially irresponsible actions of the sharing economy. Ultimately, the question of whether the corporate social responsibility embedded in the actions of incumbents working collaboratively to protect the vulnerabilities of their own enterprises can be reconciled with the tourism sharing economy operators. Who see such action as protectionism that ultimately stands in the way of corporate a socially responsible service that are convenient to consumers and that provides opportunities for social and environmental benefits to local communities.
We begin by exploring CSR and how it is linked to some of the catalysts that gave birth to the sharing economy more broadly, we then examine how tourism sharing economy services have displayed many of the hallmarks of socially and environmentally responsible behaviours. We then explore the alternative arguments that have been put forward by the tourism industry itself and government regulators that position the tourism sharing economy as a largely unethical sector of the industry. We conclude by considering how a compromise between these two perspectives offer a way forward.
Our paper follows the call by Coles et al. (2013) who suggests a need for scholarship that explores CSR in the context of the tourism industry and that lays a critically engaged foundation for a united effort from all tourism businesses and stakeholders.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 37 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
CSR, Neoliberalism and the Sharing Economy
First introduced by an American economist Howard Bowen (1953), the development of the CSR concept has varied over time in the literature. One of the earliest definitions of CSR comes from Friedman (1970) who emphasised the main purpose of a corporation and the main responsibility of a manager was to maximise its shareholders’ returns while still obeying to the laws that led to socially responsible behaviours. Davis (1973) described CSR as the issue and response beyond the firm’s economic, technical, and legal requirements. Interestingly, Carroll (1979) later contested Davis’ (1973) definition by including the elements that were excluded from the latter’s view where CSR was “the social responsibility of business encompasses economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 499).
At the heart of corporate social responsibility lays the recognition that firms privately with limited externally imposed regulations that ultimately inflict limitations on free market behaviours can manage ethical, sustainable social and environmentally responsible behaviours. Such a perspective aligns CSR with a neoliberal position that is based on a ‘set of value judgements about the superiority of market forces over bureaucratic decision making’ (Snooks 2000, p. 114).
In the process of economic deregulation in the early 1980s generally in neoliberalist economies, a new social contract was struck with its citizens – reduced governmental regulation and interference in the market with an emphasis, on one hand, being placed on consumer sovereignty, and on the other hand, an expectation that consumers take greater control and responsibility for their lives. Consumerism and commodification have become the behavioural response to this market-meditated mode of life (Bauman 2004). This new social contract signalled a shift in policy away from external government toward self- government, as the ideology of collective social provision gave way to individualism, competition, entrepreneurship and consumerism. It is within this context, that the Sharing Economy emerged. Sharing Economy: CSR through Consumer Culture
The Sharing Economy (SE) is a term used to describe a new economic paradigm driven by technology, consumer awareness and social commerce – particularly through web communities (Cohen & Kietzmann 2014). Although sharing is not a new model of exchange new ‘technologies and cultural networks now allow us to share in ways and on a scale that has never been possible before’ (Buczynski 2013, p. 2).
As there is no universally accepted definition, several other terms are often used to label the SE. They include ‘collaborative consumption’, ‘collaborative economy’, ‘social commerce’, ‘sharing’, ‘peer-to-peer economy’, ‘peer-production economy’, ‘intrinsic motivation’, ‘ecological consumption’, ‘hedonistic consumption’, ‘the mesh’, and ‘access based consumption’. Collaborative economy or collaborative consumption are the most commonly used terms to describe the SE. This form of consumption often involves a joint agreement that coordinates the purchase and distribution of a product or service (resource) for a fee, or some other form of compensation (Belk 2014). This can be seen as an economic and cultural model for the organised sharing, bartering, trading, lending and swapping of goods and services (Botsman & Rogers 2010). Similarly, the peer-to-peer economy involves
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 38 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
the sharing of resources to meet other people’s needs through flexible and adaptive networks (Buczynski 2013).
The Queensland Tourism Industry Council (QTIC) summarised this alternative mode of commodity exchange as a ‘recent economic model that uses network technologies to rent, lend, swap, barter and share personal products and services’ (2014, p. 3). This new economy has enabled sharing, an age-old concept, to now have a commercial value on a global scale. The SE has quickly become a unique economic and social exchange that is heavily focused around the inter-connectedness of communities (Buczynski 2013).
Indeed, the SE may assist in addressing major societal problems like excessive consumption and pollution (Hamari, Sjoklint & Ukkonen 2015) and social isolation and disadvantage. For example, a 2007 study in San Francisco found that car-sharing was linked to a significant decrease in miles travelled, fuel usage and car ownership (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014). Sharing can also encourage community engagement, promote self-sufficiency, encourage innovation, and provide access opportunities to people in remote communities or those with smaller budgets (Buczynski 2013).
Technology, driven by Web 2.0 and mobile capabilities, has simplified the consumer exchange of goods and services central to the Sharing Economy. Internet access via mobile phones and GPS has made SE services searchable and, more importantly, accessible in real time. This exchange represents the transition of e-commerce to social commerce. With the latter, collaboration and conversations are just as important as the transaction itself. The internet has played a major role in the growth and proliferation (Hamari, Sjoklint & Ukkonen 2015) of this new form of consumption, primarily through greater accessibility (Belk 2014).
A key element to the digital platforms that enable peer-to-peer services is built-in consumer review systems that enable those involved in a peer-to-peer exchange to assess the quality of that exchange. According to Zervas, Proserpio and Byers, Airbnb’s business model allows hosts to interact with potential guests through online reputation and signalling mechanisms. For example, Airbnb guests can rate hosts and hosts can rate guests (2014), following theft and the vandalism of an Airbnb San Francisco home in 2011. Airbnb not only apologised but also re-evaluated insurance options for its hosts (Buczynski 2013).
Zipcar (and other similar car-sharing businesses) have built their success around the notions of trust and community. Through their online management systems, Zipcar outlines responsibilities for members, provides rewards to those with a positive record (e.g. maintaining a clean car) and fines members when the rules are broken (e.g. lateness of drop-off (Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012)). Ulitimately, such a mechanisms elevate the importance of the consumer and align well with a neoliberal stance that looks to the free market to self- regulate.
Research on consumer behaviour has tended to focus on the ownership of goods and services as an extension of the self through consumption. This is in contrast to sharing, which does ‘not involve a complete transfer of ownership’ (Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012, p. 882). In addition, there is a greater focus on collaborative creation (content sharing) and social commerce (the influence of peers on purchasing, such as reviews on Web sites) in the SE.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 39 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Bardhi & Eckhardt describe two components of the SE, access-based consumption where sharing is more of a joint relationship of ownership with more altruistic connotations. On the other hand, access can be achieved through ‘redistribution markets, where peer-to-peer matching services (e.g. Airbnb and Relay Rides) or social networks (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) enable used or owned goods to be redistributed where they are needed’ (2012, p. 883).
Beer and Burrows note that the increased participation by consumers in the production of goods, services and experiences has blurred the boundaries between production and consumption (2010). This can be described as “prosumption” involving both production and consumption, driven by social changes through technology (Ritzer & Jurgenson 2010). Here, content and activity is created by the “prosumers” themselves. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, Facebook and YouTube run and promote the systems and networks that facilitate this relationship. The Sharing Economy: Consumer responsive or unfair advantage?
The popularity of prosumption and recent technological advances in the development of user-friendly digital platforms has created the perfect climate for the sharing economy to grow into a major player in the tourism industry. A recent report by the consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) indicated that 44% of US adults were aware of this new economy. From this percentile, 89% found the SE to be more affordable than the traditional market, 83% considered it to be more convenient and efficient, and 78% felt that this economic model helps to build stronger communities (Bowman 2015).
The SE is driven by for-profit and not-for-profit businesses that are looking to take advantage of this new economic model (Belk 2014). Venture capitalists have also seen the SE as a great opportunity – further driving its proliferation around the world (Hamari, Sjoklint & Ukkonen 2015). Investment from venture capitalists has been more than $2 billion in over 500 SE ventures since 2012 (Miller 2015). As a whole, global revenue from the SE is around $15 billion, and this is expected to grow to an estimated $335 billion by 2025 (Mondon 2015). Examples of the growth and value of SE businesses are provided below.
Between 2008 and 2012, Airbnb had over 50,000 rentals operating per night and experienced more than 4 million guests and over 10 million cumulative bookings worldwide (Zervas, Proserpio and Byers 2014). As of 2014, there were around 11,400 Airbnb apartment listings in the Los Angeles (L.A.) region alone. Revenue from these apartments was estimated to be around $80 million (Samaan 2015). In Sydney, Australia, Airbnb has added 10,000 rooms to the city’s rental market (DeAmicis 2015). As of 2015, Airbnb has more than 1 million listings in 34,000 cities and 190 countries, and claims to have had over 25 million guests since its launch seven years ago (Miller 2015). Having raised close to $900 million in venture capital and with a valuation of $13 billion, Airbnb has a higher combined market value than the Hyatt ($8.4 billion) and Wyndham ($9.3 billion) (two major hotel groups) (Samman 2015).
In the transport SE there are more than 600 different car-sharing providers globally (Cohen & Kietzman 2014). Uber, for example, is valued at around $41 billion and its main competitor, Lyft, which operates only in the US market is valued at $332 million (Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012). The private meal service, EatWith, is valued at $8 million (Belk 2014).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 40 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Examples of growth in the SE are Uber’s recent expansion of its operations into New Delhi, India, to support the rickshaw business (Stanley 2015), and Airbnb’s interest in tapping into Cuba’s tourism industry (Risen 2015). New SE start-ups entering the economy have greater access to data analytics than ever before. This means they can more easily anticipate consumer demand, reduce their research and development costs, and go to market quicker (Maycoote 2015).
Miller summarised several key strengths and benefits of the SE (2015). They include: additional revenue streams for a supplier, the creation of new markets through leveraging web and mobile technologies, global accessibility, trust mechanisms that bridge online and offline relationships, low maintenance costs of information technology and customer service with little if any hard costs (creating low barriers to entry), heavy focus on brands and simple operations.
However, there have been significant concerns from traditional businesses that the Sharing Economy has an unfair advantage. Established businesses are governed by state and local government legal and regulatory mechanisms that impact their operations. This includes zoning, building codes, licensing and tax collection (Miller 2015). These high-barriers to entry have been significantly weakened by the SE. In addition, tourism businesses, such as hotels, collaborate with other local businesses and governments to develop the tourism agenda of a city, in contrast to companies in the SE that have their own private agendas for profit making and community building.
The key issue associated with the SE is the lack of regulation, or bypassing of regulation that applies to the traditional tourism industry. This includes the cost of regulation and compliance for mainstream competitors and that their profits are taxed, which results in a financial advantage for the SE. By not fully recognising their transactions as businesses transactions, SE companies are able to exploit loopholes in tax legislation (Samaan 2015), regulations, insurance requirements and other compliance requirements for business (QTIC 2014). This can result in problems in areas such as consumer (and producer) protection, socio-economic impacts on local communities and cities, and potential impacts on tourism destination brands and reputation.
The SE has allowed anyone to provide goods and services that meet a variety of consumer needs. This new technologically driven phenomenon is having a major economic impact on established firms who previously provided for and controlled the market place (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014). The revenue models of SE companies are often shaped by externalised labour (i.e. independent contractors) where overhead costs are lower (Samaan 2015). Those operating in the established tourism industry believe that without a proper regulatory framework, SE companies, like Airbnb and Uber, facilitate illegal profit making (Samaan 2015; QTIC 2014).
Airbnb allows hosts to setup an account and put their spare room or home on the market without the need to set up a proper business. In contrast, for registered businesses, such as bed and breakfasts, there are local laws that must be adhered to, including permits for business activity, food licensing, fire and safety and so on. Yet Airbnb hosts and other SE business are able to bypass these regulations and operate without having to conform to such stringent legal frameworks.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 41 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Renting out of rooms/apartments in residential areas avoids land-use regulation and zoning codes. Many hosts of short-term accommodation rentals tend to be leasing companies looking to avoid fees and taxes associated with traditional regulations. In NYC, the State’s Attorney General found that 72% of Airbnb’s NYC revenue was generated through illegal listings – primarily through commercial activity (Samaan 2015).
According to QTIC, car-lending and car-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft are impacting the taxi industry and transport market by avoiding public passenger transport legislation (2014). Other areas of the SE, such as private kitchens, aren’t subject to health and safety standards (Belk 2014). Without having to legally register as a business, these suppliers are able to bypass many licenses and taxation requirements that regulate the operations of those in the established market.
Consumer and Supplier Protection
Regulatory protection for SE suppliers/ providers is also an issue. For example, some drivers in SE companies (Uber and Lyft) are mounting legal action over the lack of protection and safety measures for them under state law – as they are considered to be contractors and not employees (Mintz 2015). In addition by providing insurance cover options, SE companies are looking to shift their public liability responsibilities to suppliers.
PwC identified the importance of further developing trust mechanisms in the SE, as well as the need to address the continuous debate around regulatory issues. Of the 44% of US adults that knew of the SE, 59% said they would not trust SE businesses until they are properly regulated and 69% indicated they wouldn’t trust SE companies unless they were recommended to them by someone they knew (DeAmicis 2015).
Whereas hotels and established businesses comply with certain standards, the SE is more supplier focused. The SE places a greater emphasis on trust mechanisms as consumers will inevitably interact with the everyday person acting as supplier. People are unpredictable, and so getting used to sharing with strangers is always a common point of discussion (Buczynski 2013) and the expectations of the consumer may not be met by the supplier.
Impacts on Local Communities
Zoning laws are intended to ensure the safety and welfare of communities. They also restrict commercial activities that have the potential to reduce social cohesion (Samaan 2015). SE short-term rentals are often located in residential neighbourhoods or areas outside traditional hotel districts (Gottlieb 2013).
Airbnb for example, delivers a flexible and in some cases private living experience. Despite meeting consumer demand for this, several key negative effects can arise. For example, a neighbourhood may lose its sense of place as a consequence of offering temporary accommodation (Miller 2015). Increased tourist traffic in residential areas can not only impact quality of life for local residents but also raises safety concerns (Samaan 2015). Host communities may also have to deal with short-term renters and the subsequent issues of cleanliness, public safety and noise (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 42 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
One of the biggest issues facing cities around the world is that Airbnb’s market is dominated by whole apartment listings. In fact, around 60% of the company’s listings in New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco are whole apartments (Samaan 2015). In Venice, Florida, 12.5% of all apartments are Airbnb units, with many being unapproved by public authorities (Samaan 2015). The city acknowledges the negative impacts of the short-term rental market on the community’s character and stability (Gottlieb 2013).
Cities around the world also face the economic issue of a disrupted long term rental market. A growing number of leasing companies are taking advantage of the cost effectiveness of SE networks (Samaan 2015) and are commercialising neighbourhoods.
Impacts on Tourism Destination Reputation
Tourism and economic development are seen as key areas of interest. The accommodation, transport and hospitality industries often work together with governments to develop a city’s or nation’s tourism strategy. In Australia, the concern is that once an unregulated SE takes full flight, it could potentially damage the country’s already strong tourism reputation (QTIC 2014). The motives of the private SE may not align with the future development of Australia as a tourist destination and the socio-economic benefits that it brings.
QTIC identified several key areas where the SE and regulated tourism businesses compete against each other (2014). While authenticity tends to be consistent in regulated businesses, not only is the SE able to offer lower prices for their products due to lower overheads, it can also offer a more personalised community-oriented service. Environmentally, SE companies consume less and make use of existing resources. While communication mechanisms in established businesses are more reliable, businesses in the SE have embraced better trust mechanisms, online reputation systems and technology. That being said, traditional businesses such as hotels are more transparent in terms of consumer details whereas there are constant issues of false listings under the SE.
Operating worldwide and with thousands of customers, the SE is a multi-billion dollar industry (Koopman, Mitchell & Thierer 2014). Companies such as Airbnb, Couchsurfing, HomeAway, Uber, Zipcar and RelayRides are popular companies that are disrupting established businesses operating in the traditional markets. This is primarily through cost savings, sharing, trust and community building mechanisms. Airbnb, for example, ‘connects people to unique travel experiences at any price point’ (Buczynski 2013, p. 113). These SE companies have adopted new technologies, allowing for greater accessibility, and have also adapted these technologies to bring a human element into their economic transactions. The SE represents a cultural shift in commodity exchange and consumption.
As a dynamic new economy, empirical studies on the impacts of the SE are slowly emerging (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014). Some initial studies have sought to identify the effect of the SE accommodation market on the established market, but most research tends to be case study led. Research by Carvero, Golub & Nee (2007) and Elliot, Shaleen & Lidicker (2010) revealed a small but expanding area of research around the impacts of the car- sharing economy on car ownership, miles travelled and fuel consumption.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 43 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
One paper, however, by Zervas, Proserpio and Byers (2015), provides empirical evidence that the supply of Airbnb listings had a quantifiable negative impact on local hotel revenue in the US state of Texas. By examining hotel price and occupancy rates, the results revealed that in Austin, Texas, a 10% increase in the size of the Airbnb market (listings) resulted in a 0.37% decrease in monthly hotel room revenue. In areas where there was a higher dispersion of Airbnb listings, there was a greater negative impact on hotel revenue. Evidently, over the study’s five-year period, the most vulnerable hotels in Austin had an 8- 10% decrease in hotel revenue. Differences in price tiers (quality) and customer base show that SE companies, like Airbnb, have varied economic impacts across the established hotel industry. As a result, the most vulnerable established market players included independent and low-end hotels, and those not catering to business travellers. Interestingly, Airbnb have identified this as an opportunity for growth in the business travel sector. In 2014, the Airbnb introduced a multi-party initiative to attract business travellers who seek an alternative to staying at large hotel chains (Isaac 2014).
A study by Zervas, Proserpio and Byers (2015), indicated that the influence of Airbnb, on a vulnerable market, is significantly changing consumption patterns around the SE and economically impacting the established accommodation market. For SE companies like Airbnb, this could present an argument for the inclusion of alternative and cheaper accommodation options as a means to increase travel and tourism spend within cities.
SE companies are not only a threat to the accommodation sector but also employment in the hospitality industry. Short-term accommodation networks do not provide as many jobs as hotel do, as they either outsource their services or have no need for them. This includes valet, cleaning and front desk services (Samaan 2015). As the SE looks to target every aspect of a travellers experience (e.g. ticketing, leisure reservations and travel), the impact on the established market becomes even greater (Botsman 2014).
According to QTIC, car-lending and car-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft are impacting the taxi industry and transport market. Similar to other cities around the world these companies are avoiding public passenger transport legislation, making their own services more competitive and attractive to the end consumer (2014). Companies like RelayRides and Zipcar are also impacting traditional car rental companies. The convenience and low prices of these car-sharing companies are destroying cab monopolies around the world.
Cities are finding it hard to respond to the diverse, highly differentiated and reactive nature of the SE. By avoiding legal frameworks, SE businesses are able to offer services at more competitive price points – as well as make supplier entry more accessible to the everyday person. This is threatening ‘long-standing business models of hotels as well as regulatory structures, tax bases, and constituencies of local governments’ (Miller 2015, p. 48). For regulated businesses, competing against the SE is harder, particularly as they are yet to fully embrace the new forms of technology that drive the SE. This market disruption is leading to a loss of market share and subsequently a loss in profits (QTIC 2014). Sharing Economy: CSR through Regulation
While private self-regulating mechanisms have helped reduce negative social and environmental impacts of corporate behaviour, it has been argue that it “cannot be
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 44 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies regarded as a substitute for the more effective exercise of state authority at both the national and international levels” (Vogel, 2010, 68). Indeed Argandoña & von Weltzien Hoivik (2009) emphasise that CSR remains a contested concept with no universally agreed upon definition. Current literature suggests CSR as the actions of a firm that exceed its own interests promoting some social good while still following jurisdictional and regulatory requirements (McDonald 2014; McWilliams and Siegel 2001; McWilliams, Siegel & Wright 2006; Yunus and Weber 2009). The concept of CSR in tourism has been employed as “a guiding business policy whereby tourism companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business mission, strategies and operations as well as in their interaction with their stakeholders” Lund-Durlacher (2015, p. 59). Martinez et al. (2014) propose a more comprehensive integration of CSR initiatives into all areas of an industry beyond the confines of individual firms. However, an ongoing tension about how standards that dictate ethical and corporately responsible behaviour might best be implemented has presented challenges to the tourism industry.
Responses to the impacts of the SE have been diverse and differentiated. Businesses operating in the tourism industry, such as hotels, B&B, restaurants and the taxi industry, are worried that the SE is impinging upon their market share by offering unregulated products and services at lower prices. As such, the biggest response by industry, government, and businesses operating in the traditional economy is to look for ways to regulate and limit what the SE can and cannot do (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014). For example, taxi companies are looking for ways to make car-sharing services illegal and so too are hotel operators over short-term accommodation rental services (Maycotte 2015).
Regulatory responses could include the enforcement of licensing, permits, insurance, tax compliance, standards and reporting. This may include basic business licenses, greater transparency in insurance provision by the SE, and even regulatory measures to protect the interests of local communities where hosts of short-term rentals would have to comply with regulations around residential zoning, parking and commercial activity (Miller 2015). Noise restrictions, property care standards and curfews are regulatory measures that could be considered (Gottlieb 2013). Samaan mentions that cities should use registries of hosts and guests to mandate standards for short-term rentals (2015). According to Miller standards for the SE accommodation market could include putting day limits on the number of short-term rentals per year, having a bedroom to guest ratio, ensuring safety measures (such as smoke detectors, appropriate food and beverage storage and handling), having property managers in close proximity and imposing a minimum age for usage. Miller also suggests that suppliers and SE networks report to the city to refine existing regulatory programs (2015). Alternately, this may be viewed as an imposition on small operators through excessive costs and the enforcement of overly complex controls.
Considering many businesses in the SE are private, reports on their operations remain so. It then becomes very difficult to regulate without accurate information. Suppliers in the SE, such as owners of rental properties, aren’t often aware of the legalities of their transactions (i.e. contracts or local government laws), as well as the legal jargon that comes with it (Miller 2015). In addition, SE companies like Airbnb will not help to enforce outdated zoning codes as they are deemed to be invalid in regulating the new economy (Samaan 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 45 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Imposing older regulatory regimes onto the new economy may not achieve the end goal of protecting the traditional market as well as safeguarding consumer welfare (Koopman, Mitchell & Thierer 2014). Industry, government and policy makers need to acknowledge the different types of peer-to-peer social and economic transactions that happen both online and offline. Regulatory measures to curb online transactions will have completely different implications for the offline exchange of goods and services. For car-sharing companies, separate safety considerations would apply to the driver, passenger(s) and vehicle. In terms of short-term accommodation rentals, industry and regulation must examine the safety of owners, tenants and community, while also considering factors such as theft, damage, insurance taxes, zoning, building compliance and the legitimacy and safety of online transactions. In turn, the level of complexity and diversity in the SE means that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to regulatory measures will fail to solve problems facing the traditional market (Miller 2015).
Also, according to QTIC, local governments don’t have the resources to identify hosts and enforce differentiated laws, nor do they ‘fully understand their rights to audit and penalise hosts who are acting under the premise of “sharing”’ (2014, p. 11). In addition to the SE being a highly differentiated industry, the biggest challenge is working out who bears the burden of this new-age economy. Is it the industry, governments, suppliers or communities? A solution or a series of remedies can only be explored once these intricacies are worked out (Miller 2015).
Examples of SE Regulation
In New York City, new legislation, advocated by the hotel industry, has made it illegal for apartment owners to provide short-term rentals (Zervas, Proserpio & Byers 2014). The “illegal hotel” state law is in place to crack down on residents and landlords renting out all or part of a property for fewer than 30 days – rendering SE companies like Airbnb illegal (Pepitone 2013). In contrast Portland, Oregon has included a new category of housing in the city’s planning code – “Accessory Short Term Rental”. This makes the operation of Airbnb legal when there are appropriate permits, safety inspections, notice is given to neighbours during periods of occupancy, and the number of days the home or room is rented is limited to 95 days per year (Samaan 2015). Similarly San Francisco has responded by setting up registries with the aim of ensuring that hosts of short-term rentals are appropriately managing the property, complying with insurance requirements and proper businesses operations, and reporting guest details to the city (Miller 2015). Also a 2014 policy caps the time a whole apartment can be rented out to 90 days per year. However, Airbnb is refusing to cooperate with San Francisco City to monitor bookings for compliance and in Portland the “Accessory Short Term Rental” policy has not been effective, with only a small number of Airbnb hosts following through, meaning the city has been unable to consistently identify individual hosts and collect taxes (Samaan 2015). Indianapolis has adopted a different approach by allowing SE companies to pilot test their products. The city believes in collaborating with the SE as a way to promote ideas, economic growth and social development (Wilson 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 46 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Conclusion: Compromises in CSR
This paper highlights how a neoliberal stance taken by the sharing economy reflects its consumer culture roots and it has resulted in a powerful new entrant that has challenged traditional approaches to tourism enterprise. We also reviewed how the response from traditional tourism has been to adopt and value a whole of industry stance driven by the principles of fairness and protection. Both stances reflect elements of CSR in action. In this concluding section, we explore this compromise and how it presents a way forward where both free market and regulatory frameworks operate together.
There are some early indications that companies in the SE are responding to some of the pressures and regulatory measures imposed by governments. Airbnb have responded by providing insurance ($1 million Host Guarantee), authenticated online reviews, integrating security deposits into the transactions, flagging and reviewing hosts and guests, and providing a 24/7 support team (Buczynski 2013). Some SE companies have even offered to collect taxes and avoid issues associated with false listings, inappropriate usage of the service and user exploitation (QTIC 2014). Another potential measure has been to ensure that SE companies or hosting platforms inform their users, in particular their hosts or suppliers, of any applicable laws in that specific city (Miller 2015).
As a rapidly growing and highly varied phenomenon, the SE is not easy to regulate (Belk 2014). Governments face the challenge of structuring traditional regulatory frameworks, such as consumer protection, and applying them to these new, innovative companies. Any impulse reaction by governments to ban, over-regulate and over-tax the SE will not work unless there is some basic understanding of the dynamics of this new economy (Bogle 2015). It has been suggested that greater collaboration between industry, government and the SE to develop a balanced regulatory structure as a means to support and develop businesses and cities now and into the future (QTIC 2014).
The more effective responses acknowledge the existence of the SE and are adaptive to economic, social and technological changes. Destinations would benefit from working together with SE companies and the established market (Wilson 2015). The QTIC suggest that councils and cities should look at how they can make better use of existing and underutilised public assets. Regulation should attempt to meet the needs and demands of consumers for choice and safety assurances. This also requires governments to look at where traditional businesses are being burdened (e.g. red tape and fees) and even re- structuring existing regulatory frameworks to encourage a more level playing field (2014). Furthermore, by harnessing new technologies, governments and industry can work towards expanding the range of goods and services cities have to offer, embrace consumer participation through feedback mechanisms, and improve self-regulation and efficiency. Regulations must adapt to the current economic landscape, and cities will need to ‘experiment and develop unique, locally driven solutions to new challenges’ (Wilson 2015).
Poorly structured regulations may lead to negative outcomes. Firstly, regulation may restrict industries from embracing new technology and innovations (Belk 2014). Self-serving motives may underpin regulatory measures, using the ideas of consumer and industry protection to protect vested interests and political ambitions. In addition, regulation could lead to price increases and restrict competition. Alternatively, a complete deregulation of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 47 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
the market may lead to significant inconsistencies in terms of fees, consumer safety and quality control. For example, the deregulation of Seattle’s taxi industry in 1979 resulted in a public backlash against local government and calls to reinstate fare restrictions and licensing measures (QTIC 2014). Nevertheless, with the development of technology, the way people consume nowadays is more dynamic, diverse and engaging.
At this stage, literature on how to regulate the SE is limited, with any current studies failing to detail how regulation will address all stakeholder issues (Miller 2015). Around the world, governmental responses to regulatory measures vary. The main rationale for cities and regulators wishing to crack down on SE companies is to reclaim lost taxes, ensure there are no breaches of local laws and to ensure appropriate measures are in place for consumer and community safety (QTIC 2014).
Koopman, Mitchell and Thierer discuss whether it is right to punish new industries with not only increased regulation but also the enforcement of old regulatory frameworks. Rather, perhaps traditional markets would benefit from a more deregulated market to engage with new technologies and innovative ideas in order to better compete (2014; QTIC 2014).
Believing in the opportunities of the SE, traditional car rental companies have begun acquiring established car-sharing companies. In 2013, Avis Budget Group purchased Zipcar for an estimated $500 million US. Automobile companies have acknowledged that there is a greater demand for the short-term ownership of vehicles, particularly amongst younger people. In response, they have created their own car rental and ride-sharing subsidiaries (Belk 2014). For example, Mercedes’ Car2Go, Volkswagen’s Quicar and Peugeot’s Mu. General Motors even recently acquired the car-sharing company RelayRides. By adopting the SE collaborative model, BMW, for example, recently launched DriveNow – a car-sharing service that features a selection of their electronic car range (Maycotte 2015).
Collaboration, technology and innovation can bring economic opportunities to consumers, businesses and local governments (Miller 2015). In fact, Rachel Botsman, a global leader on the SE and collaboration, uses her existing knowledge of the SE to develop innovative frameworks for established companies to identify SE collaborative opportunities and to better compete in the new market place (2014). An example of collaboration is the 2012 partnership of the Marriott (Hotel and Resort Chain) with LiquidSpace (online platform to enable people to book flexible workspaces) to make better use of the hotel chain’s underutilised assets (i.e. function halls and other spaces). In late 2014, 342 of their hotels had meeting spaces listed on the network (Botsman 2014).
By focusing on more authentic and personalised experiences, businesses in the traditional market should look to focus on consumer needs (QTIC 2014). For other businesses in the traditional market, such as the Roger Smith Hotel in New York City, incorporating new technologies into business operations and being more ‘social’ is a normal part of adapting their product offering to today’s contemporary market. They are responding to the challenges and changes introduced by consumer demand and the SE. This includes integrating social media and technology into their visitor experience through conversations, storytelling and relationship building, as well enhancing word-of mouth recommendations. By acknowledging people’s demand for social travel, other hotels could adapt to changes and embrace new and widely available technologies while still operating within the existing regulatory frameworks (QTIC 2014).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 48 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
In the transport industry, having a greater understanding of the SE business model could present opportunities for the established market. This includes focusing on ecological, social and economic values, a greater emphasis on supplier responsibility, being consumer oriented, and implementing a financial model that more efficiently distributes economic costs and benefits (Cohen & Kietzmann 2014).
There are also opportunities for the established tourism market to take advantage of the problems faced by the SE. This is in terms of inconsistent quality or service and trust concerns between consumers and suppliers (Mondon 2015). Some businesses in the traditional market are looking at ways in which they can strengthen their key activities and competencies. This includes a greater focus on quality management, professional customer service, reputation, communication mechanisms and booking systems (QTIC 2014).
The SE is diverse, dynamic and highly adaptive. Its growth and proliferation in contemporary society represents an economic, technological and cultural shift in the production and consumption of goods, services and experiences. Sharing, as a concept, has extended beyond altruistic connotations. People nowadays share for enjoyment, accessibility, community engagement, trust, cost savings, earning potential and for other social reasons. The very notion of the SE seeks to recognise the potential of assets as having a transformative value. Whether it be making use of a spare room by listing it on Airbnb or becoming a private limo driver through the car-sharing network Uber. The SE is changing and it is challenging the social, technological, innovative capacity, and landscape of cities and communities around the world. Research on how the SE is impacting (positive and negative) cities, communities and the established tourism market is slowly emerging. As a major threat to the established tourism industry, local governments are trying to work out whether to ban, encourage or limit the development of the SE – particularly through regulation. A greater understanding of the changes brought by this new economy will help the established market remain competitive. It will also assist governments and policy makers in tailoring regulatory frameworks to the needs and strategic direction of communities themselves. Blanket regulation hinders the economic, social, environmental and entrepreneurial potential of the SE and its ability to develop and drive local economies. Key considerations are working out how to balance the relationship between the SE, consumers and established economies, and how to manage the issues and risks that are a normal part of real world dynamics. This includes consideration of public safety, trust issues, self-regulatory mechanisms, tax compliance, and the economic and tourism development of cities.
The SE is here to stay and established industries need to look for ways to not only integrate a more collaborative model into their business operations, but explore ways in which they can leverage existing technologies to enhance their strengths. In moving forward, businesses will want to be more consumer oriented, have specialised operations, be flexible, transparent and responsive to market trends. Greater public-private collaboration and appropriate regulatory frameworks will encourage cities and communities around the world to develop economically and socially, and become more sustainable and self-sufficient and we believe that in seeking only to regulate the SE the tourism industry would not be taking on its commitment to CSR.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 49 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
References
Argandoña, A., & von Weltzien Hoivik, H. 2009, ‘Corporate social responsibility: One size does not fit all. Collecting evidence from Europe’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 221-234.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Framework for Australian Tourism Statistics, ABS 9502.0.55.001.
Bardhi, F. & Eckhardt, G.M. 2012, ‘Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 881-898.
Barnett, M. L. 2007, ‘Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 794-816.
Bauman, Z. 2004, ‘The consumerist syndrome in contemporary society’, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 4, pp. 291-312.
Beer, D. & Burrows, R. 2010, ‘Consumption, Prosumption and Participatory Web Cultures An introduction’, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3-12.
Belk, R. 2014, ‘You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1595-1600.
Benzinga. 2015, The Sharing Economy Needs to Share a Level Playing Field, Insists Co-op Cabs, media release, 5 May, Benzinga, viewed 6 May, < http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/15/05/m5479983/the-sharing-economy- needs-to-share-a-level-playing-field-insists-co-op->.
Blowfield, M. 2005, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development?’, International Affairs, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 515-524.
Bogle, A. 2015, ‘Malcolm Turnbull praises Airbnb, Uber, and the sharing economy’, Mashable Australia, 5 May, viewed 6 May, < http://mashable.com/2015/05/05/malcolm-turnbull-airbnb-uber/>.
Botsman, R. & Rogers, R. 2010, ‘Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative Consumption’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 30.
Botsman, R. 2014, ‘Sharing’s Not Just for Start-Ups’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 23-25.
Bowen, H. R. 1953, Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper, New York.
Bowman, E. 2015, ‘When The Sharing Economy Brings Unexpected Experiences’, Net, 27 April, viewed 6 May, < http://netnebraska.org/node/971426>.
Buczynski, B. 2013, Sharing is Good: How to Save Money, Time and Resources through Collaborative Consumption, New Society Publishers, Canada.
Camilleri, M. 2014. ‘Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 50 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
perspectives.’, Tourism Planning & Development, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 42-56.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. ‘A three dimensional model of corporate social performance’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, pp. 497–505.
Cervero, R., Golub, A. & Nee, B. 2007, ‘City CarShare: Longer-Term Travel Demand and Car Ownership Impacts’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1992, no.1, pp. 70-80.
Cohen, B. & Kietzmann, J. 2014, ‘Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy’, Organization & Environment, vol. 27, no. 3, pp 279-296.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. 2013, ‘Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda’, Tourism Management Perspectives, vol. 6, pp. 122-141.
Connell, R. 2010, ‘Understanding neoliberalism’, in S. Braedley & M. Luxton (eds), Neoliberalism and everyday life, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, pp. 22- 36.
Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L. J. 2013, Corporate Social Responsibility in a Global Context in Andrew Crane et al. (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context, 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 3-26
Davis, K. 1973, ‘The case for and against business assumption of social responsibility’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 16, pp. 312–322. de Grosbois, D. 2012, ‘Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives and performance’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 896-905.
DeAmicis, C. 2015, ‘The Sharing Economy Is Getting Very Big, Very Fast, Says PwC Study’, recode, 14 April, viewed 6 May,
Deville, A. & Wearing, S.L. 2013, ‘WWOOFing Tourists, Beaten Tracks and Transformational Paths’, in Y. Reisinger (Ed.), Transformational Tourism: Tourist Perspectives, CABI, Oxfordshire, pp. 151-168.
Deville, A., Wearing, S. & McDonald, M, (2015 In Press), ‘WWOOFing in Australia: ideas and lessons for a de-commodified sustainability tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1-25.
Elliot, M., Shaleen, S.A. & Lidicker, J. 2010, ‘Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Holdings’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2143, no. 1, pp. 150-158.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment, viewed 23 September 2015.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 031072208 (2005-10-01). "Web 2.0: Compact Definition". Scholar.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 2013-06-15. (viewed 16 September
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 51 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
2015).
Friedman, M. 1970, ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, New York Times Magazine, viewed 6 June 2016.
Giddens, A. 1991, Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Gottlieb, C. 2013, ‘Residential Short-Term Rentals: Should Local Governments Regulate the Industry?’, Planning & Environmental Law: Issues and decisions that impact the built and natural environments, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 4-9.
Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M. & Ukkonen, A. 2015, ‘The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Forthcoming, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271971
Harvey, D. 2005, A brief history of neoliberalism Oxford, Oxford University Press, UK.
Henderson, J. C. 2007, ‘Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 228-239.
Holcomb, J. L., Upchurch, R. S., and Okumus, F. 2007, ‘Corporate social responsibility: what are top hotel companies reporting?’, International journal of contemporary hospitality management, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 461-475.
Isaac, M. 2014, ‘Airbnb Expands Into Business Travel’, Bits Blog, weblog, The New York Times, viewed 8 August 2015,
Kasim, A. 2006, ‘The need for business environmental and social responsibility in the tourism industry’, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-22.
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. & Thierer, A. 2014, The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change, Mercatus Centre George Mason University, Virginia, 9 March 2015, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Koopman-Sharing-Economy.pdf
Lund-Durlacher, D. 2015, Corporate Social Responsibility and Tourism. In Education for Sustainability in Tourism (pp. 59-73). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Martínez, P., Pérez, A., and Del Bosque, I. R. 2014, ‘Exploring the role of CSR in the organizational identity of hospitality companies: A case from the Spanish tourism industry’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 47-66.
Maycotte, H.O. 2015, ‘Millennials Are Driving the Shared Economy – And So Is Big Data’, Forbes, 5 May, viewed 6 May 2015,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 52 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
McDonald, G. 2014, Business Ethics: A Contemporary Approach. Cambridge University Press.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001, ‘Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective’, Academy of management review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 117-127.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., and Wright, P.M. 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications’, Journal of Management Studies, vol.43, no. 1, pp. 1-18
Miller, S.R. 2015, ‘First Principles for Regulating the Sharing Economy’, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Forthcoming, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568016
Mintz, H. 2015, ‘Uber and Lyft face legal test to sharing economy’, Contra Costa Times, 3 May, viewed 6 May,
Mondon, M. 2015, ‘Sharing Economy Could Reach$335 Billion by 2025, But Will It Get a New Name?’, Next City, 14 April, viewed 6 May,
Pepitone, J. 2013, ‘Judge rules Airbnb illegal in New York City’, CNN Money, 21 May, viewed 25 April 2015,
Pollard, L. 1993, ‘WWOOFing About’, Earth Garden, vol.86, pp. 80-82.
Queensland Tourism Industry Council 2014, The Sharing Economy, QTIC, Queensland.
Rainwater, B. & Hirshon, L. 2015, ‘The Sharing Economy and the Future of Cities – What’s Next?’, Cities Speak, blog, National League of Cities, viewed 6 May, < http://citiesspeak.org/2015/03/30/the-sharing-economy-and-the-future-of-cities- whats-next/>.
Reich, R.B. (2007). Supercapitalism. USA: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rifai, T. 2012, CSR and Sustainability in the Global Tourism Sector–Best Practice Initiatives from the Public and Private Sector. In Trends and Issues in Global Tourism 2012 (pp. 201-205). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Risen, T. 2015, ‘Airbnb Awaits Boost in Cuba Tourism’, U.S. News & World Report, 6 April, viewed 6 May,
Ritzer, G. & Jurgenson, N. 2010, ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”’, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13-36.
Ritzer, G. 2007, The globalization of nothing, 2nd edn, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Roberts, R. W. 1992, ‘Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 17,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 53 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
no. 6, pp. 595-612.
Samaan, R. 2015, Airbnb, Rising Rent, and the Housing Crisis in Los Angeles, Laane, viewed 2 May 2015, http://www.laane.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf.
Sebens, S. 2015, ‘Uber returning to Portland under city-approved regulations’, Reuters, 22 April, viewed 23 April 2015,
Shamir, R. (2008). The Age of Responsibilization: On Market-Embedded Morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1-19
Snooks, G. D. 2000, The global crisis makers: An end to progress and liberty?, Macmillian, London.
Stanley, J. 2015, ‘Uber Launches Rickshaw Service in New Delhi’, Next City, 13 April, viewed 6 May, < http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/uber-rickshaw-service-new-delhi-launch>.
Wearing S. L and Wearing M. 1999, ‘Decommodifying ecotourism: rethinking global-local interactions with host communities’, Loisir & Societe, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 39-70.
Wearing, S. L., McDonald, M., & Ponting, J. 2005, ‘Building a decommodified research paradigm in tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 424-439.
Wearing, S., Wearing, M. & McDonald, M. 2010, ‘Understanding local power and interactional processes in sustainable tourism: Exploring village-tour operator relations on the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 61-76.
Wilson, B.J. 2015, ‘Cities and Money: Adapting to The Sharing Economy’, Business Journalism, April 15, viewed 6 May, < https://businessjournalism.org/2015/04/cities-and-money-adapting-to-the-sharing- economy/>.
Yunus, M. & Weber, K. 2009, Creating a world without poverty: social business and the future of capitalism, New York: Public Affairs.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D. & Byers, J.W. 2014, The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry, Boston University School of Management Research Paper No. 201.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 54 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Values, Sustainability and Destination Choice Decisions of North Americans
Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, Seyhmuz Baloglu & Dr. Haywantee Rumi Ramkissoon
University of South Carolina, USA, [email protected]
University of Nevada, USA, [email protected]
Curtin University, Australia, [email protected]
Key words: sustainability values, destination choice, SEM.
Background
The sustainability concept has become popular after it was first used in almost three decades ago in what is now a renowned report, Our Common Future by Brundtland’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987). Although much of its use by policy makers, NGOs and business community has come to mean protecting the environment from further damage or sometimes a simple marketing gimmick, the academic community adopted this shibboleth as a vade mecum for ultimately creating the Shangri-La, a utopian ideal, to be reached via sustaining the culture, society, and welfare of local communities. Sustainable development come to mean an overall improvement of quality of life of all ecosystems including that of humans making it everyone’s ideal solution for all developmental ills (Choi and Sirakaya-Turk 2006). In response to these developments, the tourism industry responded by “green-washing” hotels, restaurants and tour companies as part of its sustainability strategy while tourism scholars rushed quickly to reorganize their research effort around this theme. A crude synthesis of debate surrounding the issue of sustainable development in the last twenty-five years indicates that achieving the goals of sustainable development would require a shift in culture and change in human value systems.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 55 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Literature Review
Drawing on Goodenough (1971), Li and Cai (2012) state that human values, as manifestations of culture, are at the heart of people’s belief system and can be considered as antecedents of attitudes, emotions and behaviour. Values, according to Schwartz (1994 in Shepherd et al. 2009:247), “help individuals to define and direct their goals and provide a basis for assessing the actions of individuals, organizations, and societies.” Similarly, Madrigal and Kahle state (1994, p.22) that “values are antecedents to attitude and behaviour and closely related to motivations than any other variable.” Values are also of interest to marketers because of their efficacy in predicting behaviour with a relatively few number of universal constructs that seem to change very slowly over an extended period of time (Madrigal and Kahle 1994). Although there is renewed research efforts that bring value-research in forefronts of tourism research (Li and Cai 2012), these effort seem sporadic and limited in scope. Research has yet to start to explore the efficacy of newly proclaimed universal human values such as freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility (see Table 1). All of which are now being promoted as fundamental values of sustainability by the United Nations (UN) (see The Millennium Declaration 2000). This paper voids that gap by focusing on the effects of sustainability values on choice decisions in tourism. Therefore, in this paper, the results of two studies are reported in which the efficacy of sustainability values in predicting potential travellers’ sustainable travel decisions are explored. More specifically, the objectives of study are as follow:1) to test and verify the dimensionality of sustainability values and test the existence of second order global sustainability values, 2) to determine the sustainability values of Canadian and US American travellers, and finally 3) to assess the efficacy of sustainability- values scale in predicting tourists’ choices for sustainable tourism destinations.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 56 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: Definitions of Sustainable Development Values
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VALUES DEFINITIONS ADOPTED FROM SHEPHERD ET AL. 2009
FREEDOM Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear (3 ITEMS) of violence, oppression, or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people
best assures these rights.
EQUALITY No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and (3 ITEMS) opportunities of women and men must be assured.
SOLIDARITY Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic (3 ITEMS) principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.
TOLERANCE Human beings must respect one another, in all their diversity of belief, culture, and language. Differences within (3 ITEMS) and between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity. A
culture of peace and dialogue among all civilizations should be actively promoted.
RESPECT FOR Prudence must be shown in the management of all living NATURE species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts of sustainable development. Only in this way can (4 ITEMS) the immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved and passed on to our descendants. The current
unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed in the interest of our future welfare and that of our descendants.
SHARED Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social RESPONSIBILITY development, as well as threats to international peace and (4 ITEMS) security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.
Study Hypotheses
Shepherd, Kuskova, and Patzelt (2009) provided a stepping-stone for future research in this area by creating a scale to measure sustainability values. The specific values that are also the fundamental constructs of this study are freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility. While these values have been of primary focus for over a decade, there has been little work done in this area in social psychology or
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 57 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies behavioural economics in general and tourism field in particular. Thus, we offer the following hypothesis to be tested.
Hypothesis H1a-c: Sustainability values as conceptualized as a higher order construct predict tourists’ choice of a hospitality facility (CSHF), tourists’ choice of a sustainable destination (ChSusDes), and tourists’ pre-trip preparation activities (TripPrep).
Hypothesis H2c: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ choice decisions for a CSHF indirectly via environmental intellectualism. The choice of a CSHF is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
A comprehensive review of the related literature by Dietz, Fitzgerald and Shwom (2005) shows that most studies of individual environmental values use self-reported surveys and not direct observations of environmentally consequential. Values are most commonly related to either (a) self-reported behaviours (e.g., “Do you usually recycle newspapers?”), (b) behavioural intentions (e.g., “Would you be willing to sign a petition in favor of stricter environmental protection?”), or (c) other measures that express concern for the environment (see Lu, Gursoy and Chiappa 2014). A growing and important area of research examines the relationship of values to stated willingness to pay or otherwise make sacrifices to protect the environment (e.g., “How much would you be willing to pay to protect watershed X from development?”). Finally, many studies simply link values to expressions of pro-environmental attitudes. While consumers attitudes towards environmentally responsible practices (ERP) are critically important in service industries (Choi, Parsa, Sigala, & Putrvu, 2009), little has been done in this rea as well. Thus, the following hypotheses are postulated:
Hypothesis H2b: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ choice decisions for a sustainable destination indirectly via environmental intellectualism. The choice of a sustainable destination is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
Hypothesis H2a: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ TripPrep indirectly via environmental intellectualism. TripPrep is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
Hypothesis H3: Sustainability values predict environmental intellectualism (recycling and environmentally activist behaviour).
Hypothesis H2c: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ choice decisions for a CSHF indirectly via environmental intellectualism. The choice of a CSHF is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
Hypothesis H2b: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ choice decisions for a sustainable destination indirectly via environmental intellectualism. The choice of a sustainable destination is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
Hypothesis H2a: Sustainability values predict choices of tourists’ TripPrep indirectly via environmental intellectualism. TripPrep is partially mediated by environmental intellectualism.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 58 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Hypothesis H3: Sustainability values predict environmental intellectualism (recycling and environmentally activist behaviour).
Figure 1 below depicts the hypothesized model:
Solidarity
Figure 1: Hypothesized Partial Mediation Model for Two Studies
Methodology Study 1: Canadian Travelers
The first sample consisted of a panel of 600 recent Canadian travellers who have taken a round-trip of 200 miles for at least 24 hours outside their home environment in the last 12 months. 448 out of the 600 potential tourists responded to the survey, amounting to an effective response rate of 74.6%.
Study 2: US Travelers
The second sample consisted of a panel of 1000 recent US travellers of whom 754 respondent (effective response rate 75.4%). Table 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics for both samples. The obtained data shows that both samples were a close approximation of the general traveling population.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 59 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Table 2: Sample Profiles for Two Studies: Descriptive Statistics (n=1,202)
Characteristics Canada USA Percentage 50.5% 48.6% female Age 18-24 11.8% 18-24 5.0% distribution 25- 34 22.9% 25- 34 15.2% 35-44 18.1% 35-44 18.6% 45-54 17.3% 45-54 34.5% 55-64 19.3% 55-64 18.4% 65 years or older 10.6% 65 years or older 8.3% Income Under $19,999 3.5% Under $19,999 10.6% distribution $20,000-$49,999 25.3% $20,000-$49,999 37.0% $50,000-$79,999 26.0% $50,000-$79,999 26.5% $80,000-$99,999 14.9% $80,000-$99,999 9.3% $100,000and above 21.0% $100,000and above 13.0% Refused 9.3% Refused 3.6% Education Ten years or less 4.8% Ten years or less 7.8% level Some college 22.2% Some college 32.4% A degree from a 2-year A degree from a 2-year college or school 17.4% college or school 13.0% Graduated from 4-year Graduated from 4-year college or university 33.1% college or university 24.9% A graduate degree 14.6% A graduate degree 11.9% Other or Refused 7.8% Other or Refused 1.0%
Analyses and Results
Using both SPSS and AMOS (statistical software packages), conceptual domains related to choices for sustainable tourism destinations, sustainability values (SV), and environmentally intellectual behaviour (EnvIntel) were extracted using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) first and later confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Factor analysis (EFA) using maximum likelihood with promax rotation revealed five conceptually meaningful sustainability values (SV) dimensions that were used as exogenous (independent) variables. Three endogenous (dependent) variables indicating the choice for sustainable destinations (ChSusDes), preference for sustainable hospitality facilities (CSHF) and cultural sensitivity preparations needed for the trip (TripPrep), and finally, the mediator variable (environmental intellectualism) consisting of environmentally activist behaviour (EnvActivism) and recycling behaviour (RecycleBehv). Sustainability values are measured by five values and are positively related to the choices of sustainable hospitality facilities (CSHF), sustainable destinations (ChSusDes), and trip-preparation (TripPrep). The analysis of the measurement models indicated the presence of two second-order factors: sustainability values (SV) and environmental intellectualism (EnvIntel). These relationships between the constructs were tested in a partially mediated model. Environmentally intellectual behaviours mediated the role of sustainable values for the pooled sample.
To test for model invariance between the Canadian and the US sample, critical ratios test was used that produced a chi-square statistics (See Figure 3). The analysis revealed only one
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 60 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
on significant difference between the Canadians and the US Americans, namely the Canadians sustainability values carried more weight in predicting the Trip Preparation than the Study Results
Validity and Reliability of the Measures
Table 3 shows reliability and validity analyses of five scales that are at the core of the hypothesized models. Accordingly, all five domains including TripPrep, CSHF, EnvIntel, ChSusDes and SV have high reliability coefficients ranging from the lowest of α=0.85 for the TripPrep to the highest of α=0.95 for the EnvIntel and display excellent convergent and discriminant properties [AVE for TripPrep (0.66), CSHF (0.72), EnvIntel (0.91), ChSusDes (0.70) and SV (0.73)]. The five scales’ measurement properties indicate the factor loadings are high and statistically significant (p< .05), satisfying the criteria for convergent validity. Typically, AVE is expected to be larger than 0.5.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 61 BEST EN Think Tank XVI Corporate Responsibility in Tourism: Standards Practices and Policies
Table 3: Reliability and Validity Analysis and Factor Correlation Matrix
CR AVE MSV ASV TripPrep CSHF Environmental Choice of Sustain Intellectualism Sustainable Values (EnvIntel) Destinations (SV) (ChDes) TripPrep 0.85 0.66 0.44 0.29 0.81 CSHF 0.93 0.72 0.47 0.38 0.66 0.85 Environmental Intellectualism 0.95 0.91 0.42 0.28 0.48 0.65 0.96 (EnvIntel)
Choice of Sustainable 0.90 0.70 0.47 0.31 0.62 0.68 0.54 0.84 Destinations (ChSusDes)
Sustainable Values(SV) 0.93 0.73 0.20 0.15 0.35 0.45 0.43 0.33 0.86 Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Squared Variance (MSV), and Average Shared Squared Variance (ASV). According to Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2010), the thresholds for these values are as follows: Reliabilities (CR) must be above 0.7 (CR > 0.7), for convergent validity CR > (AVE) and AVE > 0.5; for discriminant validity MSV < AVE and ASV < AVE . See Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.): Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 62 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 4: Results of Structural Equations Analysis: Total and Indirect Effects, Fit Statistics, Variance Explained
Study 1 Study 2 Final US Sample Canadian Overall Sample Model Hypothesis Relationship Standardized Direct Effects Number H1a Sustainability Values (SV) → 0.10 0.14 0.07 ChSusDes H1b Sustainability Values (SV)→ CSHF 0.22 0.20 0.19 H1c Sustainability Values (SV)→ TripPrep 0.09 0.23 0.07 H2a Environmental Intellectualism 0.55 0.43 0.62 (EnvIntel) → ChSusDes H2b Environmental Intellectualism 0.60 0.48 0.65 (EnvIntel) →CSHF H2c Environmental Intellectualism 0.49 0.42 0.55 (EnvIntel) → TripPrep H3 Sustainability Values (SV) → EnvIntel 0.42 0.45 0.43 Indirect effects H4a Sustainability Values (SV) → 0.26 0.19 0.26 ChSusDes H4b Sustainability Values (SV)→ CSHF 0.29 0.22 0.28 H4c Sustainability Values (SV)→ TripPrep 0.22 0.19 0.23 Total Model Fit Statistics χ2 1312.5 1,051.1 1,717.0 Df 410 410 410 Sample size n 1,202 CMIN/DF 3.20 2.56 4.16 RMR 071 0.07 0.07 RMSEA 0.05 0.06 0.05 GFI .90 0.87 0.91 AGFI .88 0.84 0.90 NFI .92 0.89 0.93 CFI .94 0.93 0.95
Variance explained (R2) Squared multiple correlations ChSusDes 25% 36% 42% CSHF 40% 52% 57% TriPrep 32% 29% 33% EnvIntel:Environmental Intellectualism 21% 17% 18% *** p < 0.001.
Note: The figures represent the untrimmed model; ChDes: Choice of a Sustainable
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 63 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Destination, EvB: Environmental Behavior, SV: Sustainability Values RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, GFI: Goodness of Fit Index, NFI: Norm Fit Index, CFI: Critical Fit Index.
The overall fit for the two structural models (Canadian and US models) were determined 2 2 2 initially by examining the χ statistic. The χ statistics (χ (410df) = 1,312.5 and 1,051.1 for the US and Canadian samples respectively) and the associated probability values were statistically significant (p < .001). Figure 2 illustrates the final structural model for the pooled sample (n=1,202) whereas Table 4 shows the results of the pooled as well as two separate structural equation models for the US and Canadian samples including the standardized direct and indirect effects, associated fit indices, and variances explained (squared multiple correlations).
Figure 2. Aggregated Final Structural Model for Both Samples (n=1,202)
Model Invariance Test: Comparison of Two Country Models
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 64 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Two models depicting the structural relationships between constructs of the study were compared using test of invariance of critical ratios of chi-square. The two models were not invariant, in other words nationality moderates the relationship between SV and the choice decisions contributed to this variance. Further analysis revealed that only one path, the path between SV and one TripPrep was variant. Figure 3 illustrates the comparison of direct effects of trimmed composite structural models for the US and the Canadian samples. The path coefficients inside the parentheses belong to the Canadian model.
Note: path coefficents inside the parentheses belong to the Canadian model. According to critical ratios test, only the path coefficient between SustainValues and Trip Prep is different at 0.1 level (shown in bold; z-score=1.67* p-value < 0.10).
Figure 3: Comparison of Direct Effects of Trimmed Composite Structural Models for the US and Canadian Samples: Test of Invariance
Discussion and Implications
A crude synthesis of debate surrounding the issue of sustainable tourism development and compliance issues with laws and self-regulations during the last two decades indicate that achieving the goals of sustainable tourism development would require a paradigm shift in culture and change in human value systems. However, very few studies exist attempt to reconcile human value-systems with that of sustainability and people’s consumption decisions. Accordingly, two studies reported herein can be viewed as an attempt to start a theory building process hence advance the current knowledge base in the area by emphasizing the role and efficacy of sustainability-values in predicting pro-sustainable destination choice-decisions of potential tourists from two North American countries. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to investigate the factor structure of sustainability values and overall pro-sustainable travel behaviour as
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 65 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
operationalized by three main outcome variables: a) Choice of Sustainable Hospitality Facility CSHF, b) ChSusDes (Choice of Sustainable Destination) and c) TripPrep (trip preparation ahead of the actual travel). The guiding hypothesis of the study, that this higher order factor (sustainability-values) is a predictor of pro-sustainable travel behaviour is largely confirmed. All constructs within the respective models demonstrate high reliability, convergent and discriminant properties. In a partial mediation model, using SEM modelling, our study determined that sustainability values (SV) of potential travellers determines the choice for CSHF directly, and through their effect on shaping EvB indirectly and can be used to segment the potential travel market. Sustainability values had a positive relationship with CSHF; Environmental Behaviour (EvB) is related to CSHF positively. As respondents’ sustainability, values increase the probability of choosing a sustainable business increases. Hence, these values could be used in a cluster analysis, which could potentially identify homogenous groups of people who prefer to stay in sustainable hotels and eat in sustainable restaurants. We found that recycling behaviour is a significant predictor for sustainable hospitality choice. Hospitality companies should emphasize this in their internal (i.e. posters in the lobby or elevator) and external communication strategy when targeting environmentally concerned segments. Indeed, this may even be used to identify potential target markets and media to reach them. Moreover, our data indicated that almost half of the market values sustainability; one of the implications of this finding is that leadership in this area would open up new opportunities and markets for the hospitality industry. Comparison of the model with different nationals and subcultures might be a fruitful research area. References
Choi, G., H. G. Parsa, Marianna Sigala, and Sanjay Putrevu, "Consumers' environmental concerns and behaviors in the lodging industry: A comparison between Greece and the United States." Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 10, no. 2 (2009): 93- 112.
Li, M. & L. A. Cai (2012). The effects of personal values on travel motivation and behavioral intention Journal of Travel Research 51:473.
Lu, A.C.C, D. Gursoy, and G. Del Chiappa (2014). The Influence of Materialism on Ecotourism Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 1-14.
Madrigal, Robert and Lynn R. Kahle, "Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of value-system segmentation." Journal of Travel Research 32, no. 3 (1994): 22.
Shepherd, D. A., Valya Kuskova and Holger Patzelt, "Measuring the values that underline sustainable development: The development of a valid scale."Journal of Economic Psychology 30, no. 2 (2009): 246-256.
UN-United Nations, The United Nations Millennium Declaration (New York: United Nations, 2000), 9.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 66 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
WCED, Our common future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 400. http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/rio20/pages/Download/johannesburgdeclaratio n.pdf
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 67 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Influencing sustainability through engagement in policy processes - tourism businesses as policy stakeholders
Valentina Dinica
Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria Business School, New Zealand, [email protected]
Key words: stakeholder engagement; policy processes; sustainability; tourism businesses
Abstract
This paper examines the opportunities available to tourism businesses to engage as stakeholders in policies that can facilitate sustainable tourism. It develops an analytical framework suitable for this purpose, which selects three dimensions: the policy activities involved, the objectives pursued, and the recruitment methods applied. This framework was applied for three policy instruments that (could) play a role in promoting sustainable tourism in New Zealand, nationally and in Protected Areas.
The findings show that generous engagement opportunities were available for two instruments: the 2025 Tourism Strategy and the 2008-2018 policy for monopoly/limited- supply concessions in Protected Areas. ‘Targeted selection’ was the recruitment method used for a representative tourism association, to engage in all policy-making activities, based on objectives of empowerment and strong co-production. These are rare arrangements, given the importance of the instruments. However, on both occasions no sustainability provisions were included in instrument design, other than commercial priorities.
The framework was also applied to evaluate the opportunities to engage in policy activities regarding National Parks Management Plans. These were found to be slightly less generous, but quite diverse. Businesses enjoy more extensive engagement options indirectly, through representation in the national New Zealand Conservation Authority and regional Conservation Boards. These take the form of empowerment and strong co-production, for a wide range of policy-making activities. Their direct engagement option, individually, could be seen as more modest, in terms all three dimensions of the engagement framework. Holistic assessments of business interests in sustainability should consider how businesses use available engagement options to impact policy instruments’ designs, next to their compliance to regulatory provisions, and voluntary actions, like those under the umbrella of corporate environmental and social responsibility.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 68 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Introduction
The ability of businesses to influence the sustainability of tourism development is generally examined from two standpoints: the regulatory frameworks requiring particular actions with respect to how business is carried out; and the measures/policy instruments that companies implement voluntarily. This paper draws attention to a third (indirect but important) way in which the influence of businesses on sustainable tourism can be examined: their opportunities to engage as stakeholders in policy processes and how these opportunities are used. Sometimes engagement opportunities are available voluntarily, other times they are statutory/legally-based. Besides, such opportunities may be available in one or more policy domains of relevance for sustainable tourism, next to tourism/recreation policies: biodiversity conservation, climate change, environmental policies, energy, or transport policies. Tourism businesses operate in policy arenas of different sizes and structures, where other stakeholder types and citizens are also often present. The balance of power across participants is influenced by the participatory rights available through legislation, how public actors implement public engagement provisions (when they have discretion), and how various eligible actors decide to respond and mobilize themselves, to use the available opportunities.
The public policy and public management literature has been long preoccupied with features of public engagement into policy-making and post design policy process like implementation, monitoring and evaluation. ‘Organized actors’ in the form of businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Trusts, or social enterprises are generally referred to as stakeholders, to differentiate them from citizens, when the wider concept of ‘public’ is used.
This paper contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it presents an analytical framework suitable for the investigation of engagement opportunities available to all kinds of societal actors, whether citizens or stakeholders, with respect to a wide range of policy activities, where contributions towards sustainable development could be made. The public engagement (PE) framework is presented and draws on how particular key aspects of engagement have been conceptualized in several literature streams: policy analysis, public management, and sustainability and tourism-recreation literatures.
Second, the framework is applied to assess how tourism businesses in New Zealand can influence two policy domains of relevance for sustainable tourism: the national tourism policy, and the domain of nature-based tourism (which is defined as part of the national biodiversity conservation policy). For the former, the focus will be on the latest national- level Tourism Strategy 2025. For the later, the paper will focus on:
- the policy for the allocation of monopoly and limited-supply concessions for business in Protected Areas, and
- the ten-year National Park Management Plans, where key decisions are made on the extent, types and condition of business access and infrastructure development.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 69 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The latter two policies are important for New Zealand where nature-based tourism is the key drawing card, especially for international tourism.
Third, the paper provides some insight into the question: are tourism businesses in New Zealand making good use of the opportunities available to them, to incorporate sustainability into the strategies, and to the policies and planning frameworks to which they contribute? An analytical framework for the assessment of public engagement in policy processes
Sustainability challenges have been long recognized as wicked problems, with ramifications in economic, administrative, institutional, political and social structures and processes. Addressing them requires systemic changes in societal governance (Baker 2006; Brown, 2009; Meadowcroft et al, 2005). This has implications not only for practitioners, but also for scholars. Just as sustainability is challenging societies and leaders towards holistic thinking and integrative governance, it also challenges academics towards inter-disciplinarity. Sustainability issues are multidimensional, which means that mono-disciplinary theories and frameworks are less likely to offer sufficient insight, to understand the prospects for sustainability in various domains of human action.
The governance innovations required for sustainability, including in the tourism sector, are highly relevant for several traditional disciplines. They are relevant for public management, which has offered important contributions to the topic of public engagement, primarily from the standpoint of collaboration/co-production between agencies and organized groups, for service delivery or various implementation aspects (e.g. Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012; Brudney and England, 1983; Cooper et al, 2006; Hardina, 2006; Pestoff, 2014; Purdy, 2012; Whitaker, 1980). Further, governance for sustainability is relevant for the generalist policy analysis literature, offering complementary perspectives on PE. Some include normative debates on the merits of deliberative democracies (Abelson et al, 2003; Gastil and Levin, 2005), while others offer typologies or strategies for PE in policy-making (e.g. Arnstein, 1969; Glass, 1979; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Walters et al 2000). Practitioners and international organizations have added to this strand by means of handbooks and guidelines (Cabinet Office, 2002; IAPP, 2006; OECD, 2001).
Although these two communities refer to each other’s work at times, and publish in journals of ‘the other community’ (e.g. Barnes et al, 2003; Edelenbos, 1999; Walters et al, 2000), analytical frameworks have been perpetuating the policy-making/implementation divide. Even when authors adopt holistic, governance-focused perspectives, some policy activities remain under the radar (e.g. Fung, 2006 and 2015). Understanding how PE can facilitate sustainability outcomes requires an analytical framework that incorporates all policy activities relevant to achieve the outcomes of interest, into a clearly distinguishable theoretical dimension. It is important to understand the PE approach towards various policy design aspects; but, equally, it may be important to understand whether there is a balance between these opportunities and the expectations for public input in implementation,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 70 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
monitoring or evaluation.
Next to these two strands, the environmental and sustainability literature emerging since late 1960s, has also been preoccupied with PE. Some studies invoke normative arguments, because PE is a key normative principle of governance for sustainability (Baker, 2006). Chapter 8 of the Agenda 21 adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro requires states to “develop or improve mechanisms to facilitate the involvement of concerned individuals, groups and organizations in decision-making at all levels”. In 1992, the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development adopted PE as Principle 10 saying that “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level”.
Other sustainability studies are positive, describing various PE approaches used by national/sub-national governments to design or implement sustainability policies (Coenen, 2008; Gastil and Levin 2005; Leroux et al, 1998; Wesselink et al, 2011). These approaches complement the first two strands. In addition, sustainability studies also pay special attention to PE mechanisms overlooked by the others, particularly volunteering and donations for implementation, and PE in monitoring (e.g. Lockstone-Binney et al, 2010; Waihaka, 2012). However, they suffer from the same shortcoming: the perpetuation of the policy-making/implementation divide, which is surprising for the general openness of sustainability scholars towards holistic inquiry.
In this context, the analytical framework presented here draws on the existing, but fragmented, literatures on policy analysis, public management and sustainability to synthetize a set of three dimensions, and several discrete values along each, to better understand features of PE. The first theoretical dimension worthwhile of inclusion has been identified as the ‘types of policy activities’ for PE. The relevant literature is reviewed and selects several ‘discrete values’ for this dimension. Further, two other dimensions are proposed, and operationalized: the objectives pursued through PE (Section 2.2), and the recruitment methods, referring to how participants are selected (Section 2.3). Some typologies exist in all three-literature strands, but they typically incorporate discrete values that are specific either to policy/decision-making, or to post-design activities. The proposed analytical framework extends the literature by bringing together a full set of policy activities, with sets of engagement objectives and recruitment methods (which are relevant for all policy activities considered). By being situated at the nexus of the three literature strands, this framework contributes to advancing PE knowledge for all of them, rather than mono- disciplinarily. The framework enables researchers to assess PE features and changes for any analytical unit of interest, and to carry out cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Activities in the policy process
The classical policy process view includes the following activities: policy-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (the latter feeding back into the same or other policy processes). Many positivist textbooks of policy analysis differentiate between five to eight policy-making activities, often viewed as ‘stages’ in a linear process (Bardach, 1995).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 71 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
For example, Walter and colleagues distinguish between “Define the problem; Identify the criteria to be used in evaluating alternative solutions; Generate alternative solutions to the problem; Evaluate the alternative solutions based on the evaluation criteria; Recommend an alternative” (2000: 352). The goal/objective formulation activity is typically missing from positivist approaches, assumed to come from political clients. Likewise, the activities of selecting and prioritizing values underpinning policy design are hardly considered. In most policy domains, values are essential for elaborating the hierarchy of objectives, and interpreting implementation procedures and decisions.
Some academics dismiss the stages differentiation as inconsistent with practice (Jenkins- Smith and Sabatier, 1993: 3-4). Post-positivists argue that unstructured/wicked policy problems go through simultaneous participatory activities of problem structuring and solution searches. They argue that the way a problem is framed has implications for the preferred policy options and evaluation criteria (Hoppe and Hischermoller, 1996). In this analytical framework, the term ‘policy (process) activity’ will be used, rather than ‘stage’, accepting that indeed there may be overlaps between various policy efforts and foci, in practice. Institutionalized decision-making procedures typically distinguish specific milestones in the policy process. The operations, processes and substantive policy changes involved between such milestones can be seen as ‘policy activities’. The question is: which and how many key policy activities should be differentiated, to keep the typology parsimonious, yet empirically useful?
A problem-solving approach, dominating positivist policy analysis, is not always helpful when studying policy activities for sustainability. Policy-making activities are often more complex than designing policy options, to be compared across criteria meeting a clearly specified, often quantitative policy goal (see Bardach, 1995). For example, in the Protected Area governance context, the design of nature management plans, involves the selection, prioritization and operationalization of values, objectives and policy principles, as outlined in higher-order instruments and legislation. Further, decisions on permits for access to Protected Areas operationalize nature management plans and other policy instrumented envisaged in legislation. In policy terms, these represent ‘policy outputs’ for the relevant legislative framework (Undertal, 2008).
At some point, however, the implementation of the legally set objectives will require (or be ready for) policy execution. These can be seen as types of activities where resources can be directly mobilized to generate (actions that result in) ‘policy outcomes’. These are seen as practical, or “real-world results” (Undertal, 2008) of policy/legal frameworks. Policy execution activities are extensively considered in public management (see Roberts, 2005; Whitaker 1980) and sustainability literatures (Manningel, 2008; Heritier, 2010; Pagdee et al., 2006; Schelhas et al., 2002). Likewise, these literature streams also pay ample attention to PE in policy monitoring and evaluation. Language and foci differ sometimes, though.
For example, in public management, concepts like ‘coproduction’ for service delivery (Backman et al, 1997; Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012; Pestoff, 2014), ‘collaboration’ (Purdy, 2012) or citizen empowerment (Cheung et al 2012) are often used in relation to PE in policy
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 72 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
execution. Likewise, in the sustainability literature, PE is central to some studies, but contributions are framed from the perspective of specific methods of engaging the public. Particularly, labour and resource volunteering has received attention as method of policy execution and monitoring in policy domains like tourism/recreation and environmental protection (see Lockstone‐Binney et al., 2010; Backman et al, 1997). Miller et al (2012) focus on nature-based tourism in protected areas of Taiwan and Namibia, and explain how volunteering for community-based monitoring “offers a viable solution to the concerns about costs and longevity of monitoring programs, allowing for the continuation of monitoring plans on a lower budget while creating a venue for civic engagement and capacity-building” (2012: 120). Waithaka and colleagues document how community and tourist volunteering are used by Parks Canada to help with “the introduction of new ideas and skills” in the design of volunteering programs for projects’ implementation and monitoring (2012: 120).
In this context, a set of policy activities can be distilled that would be of interest for sustainability-focused assessments of PE:
- visioning, or policy challenge mapping; this may include the articulation of guiding values, goals and objectives, next to scoping the domain of operation for the respective policy instrument or actor structure;
- elaboration of the early-draft instrument/decision; this could be an ‘options- oriented’ analytical activity. For example, for Protected Area governance, this may draw on assessments of drawbacks and benefits for various planning/zoning options, and may result in revisions of values and objectives;
- elaboration of the advanced proposal for the respective instrument/decision;
- elaboration of the final instrument/decision version;
- instrument approval (adoption of the policy instrument or decision on actor structure);
- policy/decision execution;
- monitoring;
- evaluation.
Enforcement is normally not a PE activity. Evaluation and monitoring may be carried out at different times and achieved through different methods, for which reason they can be considered separately. This typology of policy activities can be applied in relation to both policy instruments and decisions on organizational designs and mandates.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 73 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Objectives of public engagement
In the policy analysis literature, the term ‘objective’ often refers to processes, like consultation, legitimization, involvement, deliberation (e.g. IAPP, 2006; Gastil and Levin, 2005; Rowe and Frewer, 2005). A more suitable approach for this framework is to use the concept of objective in the sense of the primary result expected: for authorities and the public. Clarifying what PE should achieve helps to select appropriate recruitment methods (Dietz and Stern, 2008). The PE objectives proposed for inclusion in this analytical framework are education, support-building, analytical input, co-production (which may be weak or strong) and empowerment.
Two criteria played important roles in selecting and conceptualizing them (whenever conceptualizations differed from the dominant views in the reviewed literature). a) the selected objectives should be helpful for outcomes-oriented investigations on prospects for sustainable development; and b) the selected objectives should be relevant for both policy- design and post-design policy activities (either for all, or for a large number of policy activities). A number of PE methods that would be suitable to use in relation to each identified objective are also suggested, based on the available policy analysis literature and case studies available at major websites focusing on PE methods4. They are summarized in Table 1
Education is a frequently mentioned objective in the policy analysis literature (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). According to Glass (1979), education requires not only the supply of information on new policies, but also the provision of explanations as to why interventions are necessary. Beierle (1999: 82-83) explains that “Education would extend beyond the scientific foundations of the particular issue to the decision-making process itself, an understanding of the trade-offs involved in various outcomes, and knowledge about the interests of the various stakeholders”. Considering that education involves primarily one- way flows of information, towards the public, the PE methods that would be suitable include public meetings; website information; blogs, newsletters, exhibitions, brochures.
Support building goes beyond education, and takes place through two-way flows of information. Glass argues that this “would involve such activities as creating a favourable climate for proposed policies and plans” (1979:182). This is useful to pursue for policies requiring interventions that go against the dominant culture/tradition, or are highly conflictual across members of the public. It can also be pursued when the public’s active contribution is desirable for successful policy execution, monitoring or evaluation. Examples
4 An excellent overview of PE methods and general descriptions is available at the website www.participatorycompass.org, which offers also links to case-studies. In addition, the suggestions on PE methods per objective type draw on analyses and recommendations available in the following publications: Coenen, 2008; Gastil and Levin, 2005; Leroux et al, 1998; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Slokkum, 2003.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 74 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
of suitable PE methods include Deliberative Polling, Samoan Circle, Study Circle, Open Space Technology, and Visioning. However, support building should ideally be pursued early in the policy-design process, as the ‘decide-announce-defend’ typically antagonizes people (Briggs, 2009). Both education and support building are relevant for post-design policy activities, as they may be needed to build capacity and motivate citizens and stakeholders towards implementation, monitoring and engagement in evaluation.
Glass observes that “education, and support-building do not involve the citizen directly in the planning process” (1979: 182). Indeed, their impact on any of the policy activities can only be indirect. Consequently, three other objectives are proposed here: analytical input, co-production and empowerment. For policy-making, the main difference rests in the relative competences/discretion between officials and the
Figure 1: The flow of policy relevant information (dashed arrows) and policy recommendations (continuous arrows) for PE in policy-making (including policy operationalization) activities
Analytical-input refers to PE approaches where the analysts/officials collect information, but enjoy full discretion as to whether the public’s preferences should be reflected in the proposal/draft forwarded to competent authorities for consideration. Walter and colleagues use the term ‘discovery’ in the sense of “Aid in the search for definitions, alternatives, or criteria” (2000:352), without specifying, however, how officials are to use that. Most typologies also use process-oriented terms, like information gathering (Bailey and French, 2008) or consultation (OECD, 2001; IAPP, 2006), without clarifying what may happen with public input. A conceptualization as summarized in Figure 1 would be outcome-oriented, and clearer as to the options available to the public, to influence decisions. Examples of suitable PE methods for analytical input include written submissions, public hearings/meetings, workshops/focus groups, surveys, petitions, online forums/wiki, visioning, study circles.
Under co-production and empowerment, the public is entitled to have a more visible contribution to the decision, or policy document forwarded to politically-elected/nominated
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 75 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
authority. The discretion of analysts/officials with respect to the writing of policy proposals lowers under coproduction, and disappears under public ‘empowerment’. As suggested in Figure 1, two approaches can be distinguished for co-production. Weak co-production refers to circumstances when officials need to demonstrate where and how they incorporated public input into policy design. After dialogue with the public (represented through bilaterally pointing dashed arrows in Figure 1), officials design the follow-up version of the respective instrument. This version contains both the officials’ views and public’s preferences (on policy interventions or organizational design). Recommendations are then submitted to decision-makers.
However, the officials’ policy preferences may differ substantially from those of the public, preventing a coherent policy proposal. In this case, co-production may take a stronger approach, whereby both officials and the public are entitled to submit their reports/recommendations to decision-makers. Some structured PE methods enable information flows that are suitable for (weak or strong) co-production in policy-making, particularly some designs of consensus conferences, citizen juries, planning cells, or city advisory committees5.
Finally, policy scholars also consider objectives like empowerment or delegation (Burke, 1968, Fung, 2015). Arnstein differentiates between two delegation types: one in which the public has a “dominant decision-making authority over a program or plan” (1969: 222) and one in which citizens have the right to veto officials regarding an instrument’s adoption. The International Association for Public Participation also uses the term ‘empower’, but in the sense of delegation, meaning, “to place final decision-making in the hands of the public” (IAPP, 2006). This paper uses the term empowerment to refer to decision-making processes for which the flow of recommendations can be described as in Figure 1. When empowerment is the pursued objective, analysts/officials play facilitating roles, helping the public with accessing and processing relevant information, and interacting with other actors. However, the competent authorities may accept, or not, the public’s policy recommendations.
5 See cases in Coenen, 2008; Gastil and Levin, 2005; and case-studies available through links at http://participationcompass.org/article/index/method.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 76 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: PE objectives and suitable engagement methods
PE objectives Suitable PE methods (considering information flows, and the structure of interactions among participants)
Education public meetings, website information, blogs, newsletters, exhibitions, brochures
Support-building deliberative polling, Samoan circle, study circle, open space technology, visioning
Analytical input written submissions, public hearings/meetings, workshops/focus groups, surveys, petitions, online forums/wiki, visioning, study circles, world cafe
Co-production consensus conferences, citizen juries, planning cells, charrettes, city advisory committees, 21st century town meetings
Empowerment referenda, citizen assemblies, some designs of consensus conferences
The PE objectives of analytical input, co-production and empowerment are also relevant for post-design policy activities. The public management literature uses a wide range of alternative terms. For example, Bovaird and Loeffler (2012) refer to policy activities like “Co- design of services, e.g. user consultation (…); Co-prioritisation of services, e.g. individual budgets, participatory budgeting”. However, a closer look suggests that what they mean would be equivalent to ‘analytical input’, because the described activities refer to cognitive (knowledge, perceptions) and value-oriented contributions from the public, for the design of implementation processes, structures and projects. The ‘analytical input’ objective captures, therefore, situations when the public is asked to provide “assistance to public agents” for the design of public services (Whitaker, 1980:242).
Further, the terms ‘co-production of services’ (Backman et al., 1997; Pestoff, 2014; Whitaker, 1980) and ‘citizen empowerment’ are often used in public management literature (Hardina, 2006; Cheung et al., 2012). In this framework, the term co-production will be conceptualized, in the context of post-design activities, to refer to the public’s involvement by means of insight or tangible resources, particularly labour, equipment, funding and time. This approach is consistent with Brudney and England’s view of an active and positive public engagement (1983). Co-production can be used in relation to activities such as “Co-financing of services, e.g. fundraising; Co-managing of services, e.g. leisure centre trusts, community management of public assets (…); Co-delivery of services (…); Co-assessment (including co- monitoring and co-evaluation) of services” (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). Whitaker refers to this as a special case of co-production, whereby “citizens and agents interact to adjust each other's service expectations and actions” (1980: 242).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 77 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Therefore, the public and authorities co-produce when they are both involved in policy execution, monitoring or evaluation, in terms of all kinds of required resources. The differentiation between weak and strong co-production is helpful here too, whenever joint efforts cannot really be described as equal-share contributions. In contrast, when the public is clearly taking (or requested) a leadership role by allocating (almost) all relevant resources, the term empowerment would be most suitable. Therefore, empowerment will be used in a narrow sense, of placing responsibilities for post-design activities on the public. Methods of recruitment for public engagement
The questions of ‘who is the public’ and ‘how to recruit their participation’ have received significant attention in the policy analysis literature, as they influence the representativeness of engagement processes. A representative sample of the public confers legitimacy to the process and a higher acceptability of the decision outcome (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Public authorities need to make choices on whether ‘the public’ will be constituted by citizens only, stakeholders only (i.e. organized groups, commercial or non-for profit), or both. Engagement methods that involve both simultaneously are seen as challenging to manage, because stakeholders are often driven by strong interests and possess resources/powers superior to individuals (Dietz and Stern, 2008).
In the policy analysis literature, Davies et al (2005) differentiate among volunteerism, elections, and selection, in relation to temporary/instrument-focused PE. Under a volunteerism approach, “Participants select themselves by turning up to meetings” (Davies et al., 2005:603). Regarding elections, the following reflections are offered: “There are two principal categories by which constituencies can be drawn: those that are representative of special interests (…); and those that are designed inclusively to ensure that every person in an affected community has at least a voice in electing a representative (…). Although both these methods provide a form of democratic mandate, from a discursive perspective, both are subject to the limitation that elections determined by majority votes may mask minority opinions” (Davies et al, 2005: 603).
Selective recruitment seeks to involve societal groups that are likely to be disadvantaged by a policy development and/or are unlikely to be well represented under volunteering approaches. Fung (2006) refers to this as ‘purposive selection’, which may be passive (when only some structural incentives are offered) or active (where the intended public is targeted through persuasive communication or face-to-face encounters); Fung distinguishes this from ‘random selection’. Random selection is often viewed as the most representative method, because it aims to mirror the broader societal structure, differentiated according to categories like age, gender, income, ethnicity, immigration status, geographical location, education, marriage status (Fung, 2006; Dietz and Stern 2008). Volunteerism is viewed as the least representative method, because mostly those with time, resources and stakes are likely to use it. Nevertheless, the de-facto representativeness of methods will also be influenced by the skills and intentions of those managing/overseeing the recruitment process.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 78 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
This analytical framework proposes to include all these methods in the third analytical dimension, as ‘discrete values’, because they are relevant for all policy activities and PE objectives selected. However, while most policy scholars analyse PE methods that are temporary, one needs to consider that some PE approaches may be permanent/long-term and embedded in legislation (see examples in Leroux et al, 1998). Many countries worldwide include boards, committees or other indirect forms of citizen and stakeholder representation in environmental and nature-focused laws. To capture such circumstances, this framework introduces the sub-category of ‘targeted selection with approval’ by competent authorities. This needs to be differentiated from the ‘voluntary targeted selection’ sub-category, as in the latter case, the desired citizen/stakeholder types cannot be compelled to join the PE exercise. Further, when certain social groups must be represented in a permanent PE structure, but are allowed to nominate their representative, this situation should be categorized as a case of ‘election’ recruitment method. Therefore, five recruitment methods will be included in this analytical framework: self-selection; voluntary targeted selection; targeted selection with approval; elections, and random selection.
Research methods
The remainder of this paper applies this framework to assess how tourism businesses are engaged in New Zealand, in policies that can influence whether tourism develops sustainably nationally and in Protected Areas. Two research methods were used for data collection: document analysis and interviews. With respect to the 2025 Tourism Strategy, the document analysis method refers to the examination of published information, mainly available digitally through the websites of key public and private actors: the Tourism Industry Association New Zealand (TIANZ), which is a key representative association of the tourism sector.
Regarding the policy instruments for Protected Areas tourism, the application of the PE framework relies mainly on legal text analysis, specifically the 1987 Conservation Act and the 1980 National Parks Act. These laws incorporate detailed PE provisions for all instruments used in New Zealand to regulate the access of tourism businesses to Protected Areas. However, PE options differ across types of Protected Areas. Considering space limitations, only PE options for National Parks management will be considered in this paper. Three sets of instruments influence how sustainably tourism develops in National Parks: Conservation Management Strategies, National Parks Management Plans (NPMP), and concessions. These instruments focus on the general concession regime and monopoly and limited-supply concessions and on NPMP.
Interviews were carried out with representatives of TIANZ (Interviewee B, 2014), officials from the Department of Conservation (DOC), who is responsible for the management of Protected Areas (Interviewees C,D, E; 2014), and with one advisor from the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) where the current small-scale Tourism Policy Group is located (Interviewee A, 2015). The interviews took place either face-to-face or by phone and lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Interviews were voice recorded and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 79 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
summaries were produced by the author.
Tourism businesses as policy stakeholders for the national tourism strategy 2025: opportunities and outcomes from sustainability standpoint
Tourism has long been the second earner of foreign income in New Zealand, and it recently surpassed agriculture to become the first. The UNEP-WTO guidelines on sustainable tourism recommend policy-makers in countries where tourism is important for the economy and employment, to adopt national-level tourism strategies (2005). These should engage relevant public and private actors in both policy-making and post-design activities. Stakeholders should be selected so that all policy domains that are relevant for the sustainable development of tourism in that country, are represented, considering the dominant tourism products, infrastructures and services. In New Zealand that should include all stakeholders for nature conservation, including NGOs and recreational users of Protected Areas, given the importance of nature-based tourism.
Between 2007 and 2009, New Zealand had a national tourism strategy that was consistent with such guidelines for sustainable tourism governance. The document, called the NZ Tourism Strategy 2015, was adopted under the Labour government after many years of stakeholder and citizen consultation, and included most sustainability themes of relevance: environmental (including climate change mitigation and adaptation), infrastructural (water, energy transportation), cultural, next to aspects of prosperity and visitor experience. Outcome 3 envisaged that the tourism sector should take a “leading role in protecting and enhancing New Zealand’s environment”. Outcome 4 required that “tourism sector and communities work together for mutual benefit” (New Zealand Government, 2007: 1). The strategy and accompanying detailed implementation plan aimed at helping businesses exceed the expectations tourists on environmental performances (2007: 43).
However, little progress could be achieved in its implementation, because the 2008 elections brought the National Party and its partners, of neo-liberal orientation, to government. The 2015 strategy was soon cancelled. The Prime-Minister appointed himself as Minister for Tourism, but continued the already existing trend of downscaling the size of the public actor in charge with tourism policy. After 2009, the size of the tourism agency has shrank to a small Tourism Policy Group of around 10 policy workers located at the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). In a 2014 written interview, an advisor from this Group explained that since 2008, the government “has worked towards delivering its Business Growth Agenda (BGA). Tourism is included in the BGA as part of the Export Markets stream, which aims to increase exports, including tourism, to 40 per cent of GDP.” (Interviewee A). The abandonment of the 2015 Strategy is argued as having been triggered by the global financial crisis, which “resulted in an environment that primarily focussed on financial sustainability at a national, regional and business level.” However, New Zealand has been quite shelter from the economic crises, while the government has one of the lowest rates of public debt relative to Gross Domestic Product worldwide. Considering the role of tourism as target-group in BGA, this might explain why no separate governmentally driven tourism strategy was seen necessary, by the new neo-liberal government. However,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 80 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
tourism businesses felt the need for an overarching framework for their own sector:
“Despite the tourism industry’s importance to the New Zealand economy, there is no overarching strategic framework within which the industry operates. The lack of a framework at present means some major decisions by our public and private sector leaders are made in relative isolation. (…) We simply can’t afford to do nothing as other countries, many of them our competitors, forge ahead with their own frameworks and strategies to aggressively attract visitors. We need to act fast, decisively and cohesively before we are left behind.” (TIANZ, no date 1)
The above quote signals economic growth as a major concern for the sector. The government and tourism interests agreed that an industry-led tourism strategy, particularly through TIANZ, would be desirable. It could contribute to the growth objectives set in BGA, and satisfy the industry’s expectations for business volumes and profitability. The research participant from TIANZ commented that Tourism 2025 is a unique worldwide example where the industry was given the opportunity to shape its own future, by designing a strategy led entirely by an appointed sector representative association (Interviewee B). This is consistent with how the strategy is presented at the association’s website (TIANZ, no date 1):
“Tourism 2025 is a growth framework for New Zealand’s tourism industry. It is a cohesive plan which has been created by industry, for industry, to grow its size, value and profitability over the next decade. Its development has been led by the Tourism Industry Association (TIA) with support from key industry stakeholders.”
Consequently, how can the PE approach used for this document be characterized in terms of the three dimensions of the analytical framework? In terms of the participatory objective, from the standpoint of the government, this is a clear case of ‘empowerment’ of TIANZ. The government has agreed that if TIANZ consults satisfactorily with businesses, and with public and private sector deemed relevant, the strategy will be endorsed. From authority in the position to decide on stakeholders to be engaged in a strategy of national significance, the government withdrew to the role of consulted stakeholder, providing just ‘analytical input’. TIANZ published the full list of consulted individuals and organizations. This shows bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister/Minister of Tourism, individual staff from MBIE, and with the whole Tourism Policy Group (TIANZ, no date 2).
The next question is what recruitment method has been used. The answer depends on the actor. If we focus on TIANZ as stakeholder empowered by the government, the associated recruitment method can be best assessed as self-selection. TIANZ is not the only association representing tourism interests. However, its membership ranges “from SMEs to large, publicly listed corporates. Collectively, they represent around 85% of total tourism industry
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 81 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
turnover”6. TIANZ is very politically active and it has a well-sized group of permanent staff. TIANZ is aware of its reputation as an effective lobbying force, and considered that a national-level strategy is a challenge it ought to respond to. The following explanation at TIANZ’s website is also helpful towards the assessment of ‘self-selection’ recruitment method:
“More than 230 tourism industry leaders attended TIA’s 2012 Summit. They accepted TIA’s (Tourism Industry Association NZ) challenge to take a ‘Think Different’ approach to resolving long-standing challenges and accessing new opportunities presented by a rapidly changing international environment. (…) Building on the momentum created at the Summit, TIA continued discussing the national tourism framework idea with a range of industry players before formally committing to leading this ambitious project in December 2012.”7
In terms of the third dimension of the PE framework, basically all policy activities have been included in TIANZ scope of action, from visioning to approval, and further the post-design activities. Recently the two year monitoring report has been made available at TIANZ’s website8. Considering that TIANZ has taken upon itself the role of policy-maker the question emerges: with who did it choose to engage, how were actors ‘recruited’ and for which policy processes were they engaged. The information relevant for the first question is, again, available at TIANZ’s website:
“Who did we consult with? TIA and the project team have engaged directly with hundreds of public and private sector leaders, business owners and influencers from within and close to the industry to seek their individual and collective views and help with Tourism 2025’s development. See the Record of Stakeholder Engagement at www.Tourism2025.org.nz for a full list of the people and organisations we have engaged with” (TIANZ, no date 1).
An analysis of the Stakeholder Record reveals, however, the remarkable absence of private environmental and recreational stakeholders. New Zealand has a large number of NGOs and trusts, many of which have a long existence, wide basis in society, and even statutory roles in permanent consultation bodies involved in the management of Protected Areas: the regional Conservation Boards, and New Zealand Conservation Authority. Examples of environmental stakeholders are Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society New Zealand, Environment and Conservation Organizations of New Zealand, Environmental Defence
6 Source: http://tia.org.nz/about-tia/
7 Source: http://tourism2025.org.nz/about-tourism-2025/record-of-engagement/
8 Source: http://tourism2025.org.nz/about-tourism-2025/tourism-2025-two-years-on/
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 82 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Society, or World Wildlife Fund New Zealand. Examples of key recreational stakeholders are Fish and Game, Council of Outdoors Recreation Organization, Federated Mountain Clubs (an umbrella organization with “over 80 clubs, 20,000 members and 300,000 people that regularly recreate” in Protected Areas (http://www.fmc.org.nz/about-fmc/)), the Alpine Club, or Deerstalkers’ Association.
Further, there is no evidence of engagement with communities or ‘citizens’, as it was envisaged under Outcome 4 of the previous, 2015 Strategy. The only environmental stakeholder listed is the Department of Conservation, but the Ministry for the Environment is missing from the list. Likewise, for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which together with the Ministry for the Environment were key actors in the 2015 Strategy and the implementation plans for the sustainability measures. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the recruitment method used by TIANZ in relation to this governmentally supported new strategy was that of targeted-selection (voluntary participation). For example, there were many bilateral and small-scale meetings attended only by representatives of particular organizations, such as Regional Tourism Organizations and other regional marketing organizations, like Venture Southland and Positively Wellington Tourism Board. Large transport companies such as Interislander, Air New Zealand, Qantas, Intercity bus-line, Port Authorities, Auckland and other airport companies. The Economic Development Minister, Prime Minister, Productivity Commissioner, Minister of Immigration and Immigration New Zealand managers, Tourism New Zealand marketing agency, Maori Tourism, Ngai Tahu Tourism, New Zealand Maori Tourism Council, New Zealand Transport Authority, Local Government New Zealand, regional and local district councils and Labour Party tourism spokesperson. In addition, there were bilateral or group consultations with tourism academics from New Zealand and Australia (TIANZ, no date 2). For other meetings TIANZ organized ‘roadshows’ where any hotel/motel owners, tour operators or other economic agents were invited, as long as they belonged to the eligible group of interest (TIANZ, no date 2).
With respect to the engagement objective for these actors, analytical input seems to have been applied for all policy activities related to strategy design. In addition, the objective of support-building seems to have been pursued for the activities of strategy visioning and first draft design. TIANZ described the process as follows:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 83 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
“How was Tourism 2025 developed? A National Tourism Plan (NTP) was conceived at the TIA Summit in October 2012. In Phase 1 of the project, a wide range of stakeholders, both within and beyond the industry, were consulted to ensure the project had a solid foundation. At an early stage, these stakeholders endorsed two key pillars for the Plan, namely economic growth and quality of the visitor experience. In Phase 2 (April-June 2013), a small project team developed a ‘straw-man’ growth framework (based on five key themes). In Phase 3 (July-Oct 2013), the framework was tested through detailed investigations and analytical work. Tourism 2025 – Growing Value Together/Whakatipu Uara Ngatahi was formally launched at the 2013 TIA Summit in Wellington on 1 October 2013. Work continued after that date to develop the detailed framework. Key stakeholders were consulted and their feedback incorporated into Tourism 2025.” (TIANZ, no date 1)
Therefore, it can be argued that from the standpoint of policy activities, the targeted stakeholders had the opportunity to provide analytical input and develop interest in the strategy through support-building by TIANZ, for all policy activities involved in policy design.
Therefore, empirical findings indicate that businesses enjoyed extremely wide opportunities to influence the current tourism strategy, as represented schematically in Figure 2. This may be a unique case worldwide, as normally tourism strategies are approved by public authorities, or at least coproduced with businesses and other stakeholders. However, the sustainability dimension of this latest strategy is almost missing. This represents a significant step backwards compared to the cancelled 2015 Tourism Strategy, which contained a comprehensive package of sustainability-oriented measures (both compulsory and voluntary).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 84 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 2: Stakeholder engagement approaches for the 2025 Tourism Strategy: dashed lines for TIANZ and continuous lines for all those invited to TIANZ to contribute.
The 2025 Strategy has the aspirational goal to reach a total revenue for tourism of 41 billion NZD by 2025 (compared to 24 billion in 2013) amounting to a 3.7% direct contribution of tourism to the GDP (TIANZ, 2014: 1-3). This goal relies in measures and project grouped in five themes, drawing on the following arguments:
Grow sustainable air connectivity: “around 99% of international visitors arrive by air so we cannot grow without it”
Target for value: “as the global landscape changes and our visitor mix evolves, we need to identify and pursue the opportunities that will deliver the greatest economic benefit”
Drive value through outstanding visitor experience: “our changing visitor mix brings changing visitor expectations. By continuously striving to improve our visitors’ experience, we will see visitors staying longer, travelling more widely and spending more”;
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 85 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Productivity for profit: “by improving tourism productivity, we will improve returns from existing investments and attract new capital investment”;
Prioritise insight to drive and track progress: “good insights are critical to drive strategic and operational decision-making for tourism businesses” (TIANZ, no date 1).
In conclusion, despite the de-facto full control to influence strategy design, tourism businesses have not used the opportunity to introduce provisions in any sustainability dimension other than the economic one.
Tourism businesses as policy stakeholders for nature-based tourism: the general concession regime and the case of monopoly limited-supply concessions
In New Zealand, about one-third of the country is protected through one of 60 types of Protected Areas regimes (DOC, 2014). The 1987 Conservation Act is implemented through 17 regional Conservation Management Strategies (CMS), which are further implemented through 13 National Parks Management Plans (NPMP)9. Concessions are key tools for managing Protected Areas sustainably, because they implement all other, high-order instruments. The types (and sometimes volumes) of commercial activities allowed in National Parks are regulated through zoning, laid out in Park Plans.
The 1987 Conservation Act dedicates Part 3 to concessions, distinguishing among (Art. 2.1):
permits, granting the “right to undertake an activity that does not require an interest in land”; licenses, offering a “nonexclusive interest in land or a grant that makes provision for any activity on the land that the licensee is permitted to carry out”; leases, “granting an interest in land that (A) gives exclusive possession of the land and (B) makes provision for any activity on the land that the lessee is permitted to carry out”; easements are also envisaged but less used for tourism.
The Department tends to operationalize these forms by considering also the expected environmental and nature impacts, and the length of the requested concession. These aspects influence whether concession applications will be publicly notified. If concessions activities/facilities are likely to be high impact and/or be requested for a longer term, the public should be notified.
The operationalization of high impact and longer term by DOC changed in 2010 when the
9 The Protected Areas that are not covered by National Parks Management Plans fall under Conservation Management Plans. PE features for the latter are highly similar to those for National Parks, and have not been detailed in this paper due to space restrictions.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 86 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
government decided to revise the 1987 Conservation Act on the public notification provisions. The revised Act requires the Minister to publicly notify, before granting, any “lease or a license with a term (including all renewals) exceeding 10 years” (Section 17T(4)). However, “Before granting a license with a term (including all renewals) not exceeding 10 years, or a permit (…) the Minister may give public notice of the intention to do so if, having regard to the effects of the license permit or easement, he or she considers it appropriate to give the notice”, according to the new Section 17T(5). While permits may not be longer than 10 years and are not renewable (Section 17Z[2]), leases and licenses “may be granted for a term (which shall include all renewals of the lease or license) not exceeding 30 years or, where the Minister is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, for a term not exceeding 60 years” (Section 17Z[1]).
In this context, the 1987 Conservation Act allows any interested citizen and stakeholder, including individual tourism businesses and representative associations like TIANZ, to comment on concession applications, and express their support or lack thereof. However, this may only be done once the final version of the instrument was designed by DOC officials. This final version takes the form of a Departmental report justifying the intended approval. If major concerns are viewed as acceptable, the report or decision may be altered. However, this happens seldom, in cases of major infrastructural proposals, attracting significant public opposition. Comments may only be provided based on the PE methods of written submissions and public hearings, and only for the concession types specified in the Conservation Act. For all citizens and stakeholders, the recruitment method for concession decisions is always self-selection/volunteering, as shown in Figure 3. In terms of the engagement objective, citizens/stakeholders are always only allowed to provide analytical input. The discretion available to Department officials regarding the use of citizens’/stakeholders’ policy preferences is clear from Section 49(2) (d): the Director- General must send the Minister his/her recommendation, “a summary of all objections and comments received and a recommendation as to the extent to which they should be allowed or accepted”.
An important aspect of concessions that has seldom been considered in the tourism literature is that of concession allocation when supply is limited. This is a very sensitive issue, as the business interests at stake are significant. In some Park areas, some activities/facilities need to be restricted to one or few suppliers. This may be due to ecological reasons, such as limited carrying capacity of fragile caves or wetlands, or in habitats of endangered species. In other cases, this may have to do with the fact that some Park areas are zoned in the planning instrument as ‘low use’ or remote/wilderness areas, affecting the number of concessions for activities like helicopter landings and boat access, or privately-owned infrastructures like wharfs or accommodation units. If the limit on the use of natural resources is not properly assessed and managed, this will have negative consequences for the sustainability of tourism activities, including visitor satisfaction, biodiversity conservation, landscape protection and environmental quality.
For these reasons, some authorities in other countries manage access not only in terms of volumes, but also of performance quality, by requiring concessionaires to perform at high
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 87 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
environmental standards (Wyman et al, 2011). Best practice shows that often the concession allocation method used is that of contract tendering or auction, such as in some Australian states, Canada, Namibia, Mozambique, South Africa and United States (Thompson et al, 2014). The selection criteria used often include environmental, social and nature protection measures (Wyman et al, 2011). This incentivizes applicants to commit themselves to practices and performances that are well above the standard requirements, set in regular concession contracts based on generic provisions in the environmental, biodiversity, and other relevant legislation. Because it so important to allocate monopoly- limited-supply concession properly, to the most qualified and environmentally-minded operators, in some countries the policies shaping the allocation of such concessions are adopted with public engagement (Thompson et al, 2014; Leung et al 2015).
Further, monitoring and enforcement procedures need to be clear, well-funded, and drawing on clear and feasible legal pathways (Thompson et al, 2014; Leung et al 2015; Wyman et al, 2011). These will enable the authority to suspend or terminate the contract when concessionaires’ performance endangers nature and environmental protection in the respective Protected Area. Such provisions are also more likely to be effectively included in contracts when the concession allocation method relies on tenders and auctions, as they are basically tailor-made contracts (Thompson et al, 2014: Leung et al 2015). Such contracts would better suit limited-supply PA locations and sites with unique ecologically vulnerabilities, compared to generic, standardized concession contracts (Eagles et al, 2002:149-150; Thompson et al, 2011).
The mechanisms of concession allocation available to DOC in cases of monopoly/limited- supply are regulated in the 1987 Conservation Act, which was revised in 1996 to introduce concessions for business in certain types of Protected Areas, including National Parks. The 1996 Conservation Act change introduced Sections 17ZG(1) and 17ZG(2) with the following (still applicable) provisions: “(1) Subject to this Act, nothing in this Part shall affect or limit the proper exercise by the Minister or Director-General of any power to manage any land held or managed under this Act or any Act specified in Schedule 1. (2) Without limiting any power exercisable by the Minister, the Minister may—(a) tender the right to make an application, invite applications, or carry out other actions that may encourage specific applications”.
DOC has traditionally relied on the least competitive mechanism of concession allocation: ‘first-come, first-served’, whereby concessions are granted until the limit envisaged in Park Plan has been reached. The contracts are typically generic/standardized and include only a limited number of environmental measures or performance requirements that are site/area-specific (Dinica, 2016). TIANZ and all incumbent concessionaires strongly prefer this approach, followed by the mechanism of tendering the right to make an application (TIANZ, 2006). However, paragraph (1) is clear that the Act permits the Minister to use other procedures, such as tendering a concession allocation, rather than tendering only the right to submit an application (which would then be processes based on the criteria noted above).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 88 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
However, tourism demand is extremely high for such unique locations. The contracts are not subject to price regulation and can be sold for very high profits. Therefore, incumbents have a significant interest to have their contracts renewed automatically or being given preferential treatment. They have been exercising sustained lobbing on political decision- makers, individually and through TIANZ, to persuade the Conservation Minister to refrain from using any competitive allocation mechanisms allowed by law, particularly tendering the business opportunity. The latter method was preferred by DOC officials, and recommended in a thorough review of the concession regimes, in 2010 (DOC, 2010a).
The Conservation Ministers (in power between 2005-2008) have decided to make use of the provision to “carry out other actions that may encourage specific applications”. This was implemented by allowing tourism businesses, through TIANZ, to engage in strong co- production towards a new policy document that would regulate, for a specific timeframe, how monopoly-limited-supply concessions should be allocated (Interviewees C, D, E). While decision-making could have been restricted to DOC officials and Minister, the decision was made to invite TIANZ, by using what the PE framework proposed in this paper refers to as targeted-selected with approval, in order to increase the legitimacy of the decision in the tourism sector. For the same reason, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Tourism was also invited to the negotiation process (Interviewees C, D, E). All three actors were involved in discussions on all policy design activities, from visioning to decision-making (Interviewees C, D, E), as summarized in Figure 3. The preferences of TIANZ were not in line with those of DOC officials. Nevertheless, the two Ministers decided to give equal treatment to the two actors and policy recommendations were given equal considerations. Therefore, the process followed was consistent with what the PE framework conceptualizes as strong- coproduction.
So what was the outcome of this stakeholder engagement process where tourism businesses were given, again, such a significant opportunity to influence policy towards sustainable tourism? Empirical information shows that TIANZ argued vigorously for the least competitive procedure discussed, the Preferential Right to Apply (PRA) for incumbents. TIANZ argued that “providing an incumbent with a preferential right to apply for a concession does not create a monopoly. In fact, the definition of a monopoly is complex in legal terms, and even where there is one operator in an area, that does not necessarily constitute a monopoly under competition law” (2006: 8). In its 2006 submission, regarding the draft agreement, TIANZ even warned about litigation risks writing that “The reality of open allocation processes is very difficult in legal terms and the Association believes that there is significant risk of litigation in these circumstances. This could and has tied up significant Departmental funds and resources which would be better used achieving positive conservation outcomes” (ibid. pp3). The agreement was signed in August 2008, envisaging the following process.
For the period 2008-2018, incumbents whose concession expires may be given PRA if they satisfy 3 simple conditions: a current Qualmark certification endorsement for the activity, which does not include environmental requirements; compliance with contract conditions; and “no convictions or successful infringement actions taken against them under the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 89 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Conservation and associated Acts” (DOC and TIANZ, 2008: 2). Hence, not just concession breaches. If successful, the contract length will be 15 or 20 years maximum.
After this term expires, incumbents will be offered a “contestable allocation process (most often in the form of a tender)”. However, “incumbents who meet the qualifying criteria will be given a favourable ‘weighting’ in this process (…). If a tender process ends in a dead-heat (all things being equal), the tender will fall automatically in favour of the incumbent” (ibid, p.3).
The agreement contains no provisions regarding the possibility of contract-specific environmental requirements that are additional to the minimum legal requirements to ensure protection of the more vulnerable sites. Previous research indicated that the monitoring of concessionaires is highly deficient, due to both staff shortages at DOC and failure to use the legally available mechanisms to charge concessionaires for monitoring costs (Dinica, 2014). Likewise, there are significant issues with enforcement, DOC incurring high legal and human resource costs, as well as some obstacles with judicial procedures, which make prosecution exceptionally difficult (see Dinica, 2014).
In this context, it can be concluded that the tourism sector, through TIANZ, has again missed an important opportunity to shape a key policy document so that it offers stronger safeguards for sustainable tourism in Protected Areas. The stakeholder engagement options available to tourism businesses individually for decisions on individual concession applications are represented through continuous lines in Figure 3.
Further, Figure 3 shows the one-off opportunities, made available by the Conservation Minister, to engage concessionaires in shaping the 2008-2018 policy on the allocation of monopoly/limited-supply concessions.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 90 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 3: Stakeholder engagement approaches for individual concession applications (continuous lines) and for the policy on monopoly/limited-supply concessions’ allocation for TIANZ (dashed lines). Tourism businesses as policy stakeholder for National Parks Management Plans
Businesses enjoy two forms of stakeholder engagement regarding NPMP: directly and indirectly. Indirectly, tourism interests have statutory presence in all permanent bodies for PE in policy-processes: 14 regional Conservation Boards and the national New Zealand Conservation Authority. These bodies enjoy high policy influence, by being involved in a wide range of policy activities, and having the opportunity to engage in ‘strong coproduction’ or ‘empowerment’ with respect to many policy activities related to NPMP, as explained in the following section. For tourism interests, the recruitment method for these
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 91 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
two indirect fora for engagement is that of ‘targeted selection with approval’. In addition, individual businesses may engage in some policy activities directly, through ‘self-selection’, but only by providing ‘analytical input’, as in the case of concessions (see the section on indirect engagement options available to tourism businesses).
Indirect engagement options available to tourism businesses
New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) is a permanent public committee. The main recruitment method used is that of ‘targeted selection with approval’ (Figure 4). This is used for most members, except for the Maori representatives (referred to as ‘iwi authorities’ or ‘hapu’), for whom the elections-based nomination method is envisaged. In terms of membership, five members are appointed following recommendations from three ministries: tourism, Maori affairs and local government; three persons are recruited from non-governmental organizations (NGOs: the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and Federated Mountain Clubs); four members are appointed from among citizens, following public notice.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 92 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 4: Indirect engagement of tourism interests in National Park Management Plan processes, through the New Zealand Conservation Authority.
The recruitment method is important, because the Authority is entrusted with empowerment, as participatory objective for Park Plans (Figure 4). The 1980 National Parks Act regulates in Section 18 that the Authority is entitled to approve National Park Management Plans and their revisions. In terms of policy activities, the Authority only becomes involved in the process once the document can be presented in its final form, after all other public engagement options prescribed by law have been followed, hence the ‘final approval’ policy activity (see Figure 4).
Conservation Boards are also permanent public committees, recruited through ‘targeted selection with Ministerial approval’ (Figure 5). Membership is regulated through Section 6P of the Conservation Act:
“Every Board shall consist of not more than 12 members. (…), the Minister
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 93 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
shall appoint every member of a Board after giving public notice (…), and having regard to (…) the interests of nature conservation, natural earth and marine sciences, recreation, tourism, and the local community including the Tangata Whenua of the area.”
Figure 5: Indirect engagement of tourism interests in National Park Management Plan processes, through the Conservation Boards.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 94 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
This quote also indicates that both the number of Boards and membership numbers per Board may be changed without public input. With respect to Park Plans, the objective for Boards’ engagement is strong co-production, in relation to advanced proposals and final versions. This is clear from Section 47:
“(5) The Board shall consider the amendments made by the Director- General under subsection (4), and shall either—
(a) send the draft back to the Director-General for further consideration and revision and after such consideration send the draft to the Authority for approval; or
(b) send the draft to the Authority for approval.
(6) With every recommendation made under subsection (5), the Board shall also send to the Authority—
(a) a summary of the comments received and a statement of the extent to which they have or have not been accepted; and
(b) statements of any matters relating to the management plan on which the Director-General and the Board have been unable to reach agreement.”
The participatory objective is lowered to analytical input, for the policy activities of visioning, and first-draft elaboration (when Boards share this engagement objective with citizens and stakeholders, including individual tourism businesses and TIANZ). Neither the Authority nor the Boards have any roles in post-design policy activities for Park Plans. Direct stakeholder involvement in National Parks Management Plans
The 1987 Conservation Act allows any interested citizen and stakeholder to comment on NPMP. However, this may only be done at certain milestones in the policy-making process. For them, the recruitment method is always self-selection, as shown in Figure 6. In terms of the engagement objective, citizens/stakeholders are always only allowed to provide analytical input. The discretion available to Department officials on how their input is used is clear from Section 49(2)(d): the Director-General must send the Minister his/her recommendation, “a summary of all objections and comments received and a recommendation as to the extent to which they should be allowed or accepted”. In terms of policy activities citizen/stakeholder involvement is required for visioning and the early-draft elaboration (Figure 6). This can be seen in Section 47, requiring that:
“Before preparing or reviewing a management plan for any park, the Director-General shall (…) invite persons and organisations interested to send to the Director-General written suggestions for the proposed plan”.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 95 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In addition to these policy activities, citizens and organized groups (community volunteers, mainly) have been contributing for decades their labour, time and donations to policy execution and monitoring activities. They are typically associated with Park Plans, as these contain more concrete provisions that can be translated in local projects for volunteers. The recruitment method for these is also self-selection. Post-design PE usually takes the form of projects for pest trapping and removal, maintenance of remote tacks and huts, and the monitoring of biodiversity, recreational and historic heritage resources (DOC, 2010b). The objective pursued has been weak or strong coproduction (depending on activities), with some businesses and a few large nationally significant NGOs being able to contribute more financial and labour resources than others are. The Department has been contributing staff, equipment, fuel and some travel costs, mostly to community/NGO volunteers, especially for smaller local projects (DOC, 2010b).
Figure 6: Direct engagement of tourism interests in National Park Management Plan processes (continuous lines for policy-making activities and dashed lines for post-design activities).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 96 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Summary and concluding reflections
This paper set out to examine the opportunities available to tourism businesses to engage as stakeholders in policy processes that can facilitate sustainable tourism. Towards this purpose it developed an analytical framework suitable for the investigation of engagement options available to all kinds of societal actors, whether citizens or stakeholders, with respect to a wide range of policy activities. The framework draws on contributions from policy analysis, public management, and sustainability and tourism-recreation literatures, proposing three analytical dimensions: the policy activities involved, the objectives pursued, and the recruitment methods for ‘the public’. This framework was applied for three policy instruments that (could) play an important role in promoting sustainable tourism in New Zealand, nationally and in Protected Areas.
The findings show that remarkably generous engagement opportunities were offered to tourism businesses for two instruments: the 2025 Tourism Strategy and the 2008-2018 policy for monopoly/limited-supply concessions in Protected Areas. ‘Targeted selection’ was the recruitment method used for a representative tourism association, TIANZ, to engage it in virtually all policy-making activities, based on the participatory objectives of empowerment, respectively strong co-production. These are rare arrangements, worldwide, given that very important policy instruments are involved. The policy analysis literature indicates that the empowerment objective is normally used in combination with the most representative recruitment method: random selection10. This combination also raises questions of legitimacy, considering that citizens and environmental interests were not consulted by TIANZ or public authorities. However, on both occasions no sustainability provisions have been included in instrument design, other than commercial priorities for the industry as a whole (the 2025 Strategy), or for a particular group of businesses (incumbent concessionaires).
The opportunities of tourism businesses to engage in policy activities related to National Parks Management Plans are less generous, but quite diverse. Businesses enjoy more extensive options indirectly, through representation in the national New Zealand Conservation Authority and regional Conservation Boards. These take the form of empowerment and strong co-production, for a wide range of policy-making activities. With respect to post-design activities there are also opportunities for strong/weak coproduction. Their direct engagement option, individually, could be seen as more modest, in terms all three dimensions of the PE framework. Nevertheless, the ‘self-selection’ method used in this case advantages businesses, as compared citizens/non-commercial organizations, when they with benefit of enough human, material and knowledge resources to dedicate to engagement processes (Dietz and Sterns, 2008). However, there are also disadvantages with
10 See case studies or information on methods like Citizen Juries, Citizen Assemblies or Consensus Conferences at references in endnote (i), where combinations of empowerment and random recruitment have been used.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 97 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
this recruitment approach, because the PE methods used are written submissions and public hearings. These are the oldest in use and have been criticized as unhelpful, given the one- flow of information involved (Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Methods that are more effective have been developed over the past decades, using two flows of information, which could be used for more genuine public/stakeholder engagement (Rowe and Frewer, 2005).
The extent and outcomes of using thee engagement for opportunities to promote sustainability through NPMP cannot be assessed on this paper, both due to space constraints and some challenges that scholars interested to pursue such a research agenda would need to address. First, several case studies would be needed on the design and implementation of several NPMPs to draw some meaningful conclusions. Second, carefully designed qualitative methods need to be used, such as face-to-face interviews, focus groups, or the Delphi method, to elicit information on the extent to which tourism businesses manage to have their views and policy preferences carried through regional Boards and the Conservation Authority, and reflected into instrument design. Third, a thorough assessment is needed of the extent to which the accepted policy preferences support or not sustainability principles, measures and performances. The third challenge may be quite difficult to address, as businesses are likely to present a wide range of views, from pro-commercialization (more generally, for in favour of their own narrow interests) to pro-environmental, leading to the question – which would be predominantly reflected in instrument design, eventually?
The empirical analyses presented in this paper with respect to sustainability provisions of the adopted instruments cannot be used to conclude that New Zealand businesses are insensitive to sustainable tourism. TIANZ does seem, however, to embrace a weak sustainability conceptualization when it states at its website that
“TIA believes sustainability requires balancing economic, social, cultural and environmental objectives and should be a genuine ethical underpinning of the New Zealand tourism industry. TIA advocates for all tourism operators to recognise the importance of growing their businesses in a sustainable way”.
New Zealand has a long history of soft regulation towards businesses, including in environmental policy, preferring voluntary agreements and corporate social/environmental responsibility commitments. This seems to be the case also when it comes to environmental requirements for tourism concessionaires, which are predominantly weak and avoid spelling out any expectations for nature enhancement in Protected Areas (Dinica, 2016). Therefore, in studies of voluntary approaches towards sustainable tourism, including based on corporate social/environmental responsibility programs. Scholars need to perform holistic assessments, by considering the ambition of voluntary actions on the background of: a) the extent and quality of sustainability objectives/measures set through legislation (direct regulation or economic/financial instruments) and b) the opportunities available to businesses to promote sustainability in their role of policy stakeholders.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 98 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Abaza, H. R. Bisset, Sadler, B. (2004). “Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards and Integrated Approach”. Report for the United Nations Environment Program. Geneva.
Abelson J., P.G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, F.P. Gauvin. (2003). “Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes”, Social Science and Medicine 57:239–251.
Arai, S.M. (2000). “Typology of volunteers for a changing socio-political context: The impact of social capital, citizenship and civil society.” Society and Leisure, 23(2), 327-352.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development. Routledge.
Bailey, C., S. French. (2008) “Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision”. Group Decision and Negotiation 17:195–210
Backman, K.F., B. Wicks, K.E. Silverber. (1997) “Coproduction of recreation services An integrated approach to public service delivery”. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(3):58-75.
Bardach, E. (1995) Policy Analysis: A Handbook for Practice, Electronic Hallway.
Barnes, M., J. Newman, A. Knops and H. Sullivan. (2003). “Constituting “the Public” in Public Participation”. Public Administration 81(2):379–399.
Beierle, T. (1999) “Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions”. Policy Studies Review 16(3-4):75-103.
Bovaird, T. & E. Loeffler. (2012). “From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value”. Voluntas 23:1119-1138.
Brown, K. (2009) “Human development and environmental governance”, in Governing Sustainability, W.N. Adger and A. Jordan (Eds). Cambridge University Press.
Brudney, J. L., R.E. England. (1983) “Toward a definition of the coproduction concept” Public Administration Review, 43(1):59-65.
Bryson, J.M., K.S. Quick. (2013). “Designing public participation processes: Theory to practice”, Public Administration Review 73(1):23–34.
Burke, E. (1968) “Citizen participation strategies”. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35:287–294
Cabinet Office. (2002). A policy maker's guide to public involvement. Cabinet Office, London.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 99 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Retrieved from www.policyhub.gov.uk/docs/viewfinder%201%2002.10.022.pdf, 3/11/2015.
Cheung, C.K., L.T. Wing, S.C. Liu. (2012) “Measuring volunteering empowerment and competence in Shanghai”. Administration in Social Work 36(2):149-174.
Coenen, F.H.J.M. [Ed]. (2008). Public participation and better environmental decisions. Springer.
Cooper, T.L., T.A. Bryer, and J.W . Meek. (2006). “Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management” Public Administration Review, 12:76-88.
Davies, B.B., K. Blackstock, F. Rauschmayer. (2005). “'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?” Environment and Planning C 23:599-615.
Dietz, T.D., P.C. Stern. (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision- making. Washington. The National Academy Press.
Dinica, V. (2014). Tourism concessions in National Parks: neo-liberal tools for a Conservation Economy in New Zealand. Full research paper presented at the BEST-EN Think Tank XIV: Politics, Policy and Governance in Sustainable Tourism, June 23-26, 2014, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Dinica, V. (2016 online) “Tourism concessions in National Parks: neo-liberal experiments for a Conservation Economy in New Zealand”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, forthcoming in print in 2017 as part of a special issue on Protected Area Sustainability. Available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669582.2015.1115512?journalCo de=rsus20#.VwGvQzG2Fl0 .
DOC and TIANZ. (2008). “Agreement regarding concession allocation in limited supply situations re incumbent operators”. Wellington.
DOC. (2010a). “Concessions Reviewing Report”. Wellington. Viewed 30/09/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/ concessions/concessions-processing-review-report.pdf
DOC. (2010b) “Valuing community group contributions to conservation”. Wellington. Retrieved 27/10/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and- technical/sfc299entire.pdf
DOC. (2014) “Briefing to the incoming Minister of Conservation”. Retrieved 27/10/2015 at http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/publications/bim- 2014/briefing-to-incoming-minister-2014.pdf
Edelenbos, J. (1999). “'Design and Management of Participatory Public Policy Making”,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 100 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Public Management Review, 1(4):569-576
Eagles, P.F.J., C.M. Baycetich, X. Chen, L. Dong, E. Halpenny, P.B. Kwan, J. Lenuzzi, X. Wang, H. Xiao, Y. Zhang. (2009). Guidelines for planning and management of concessions, licenses and permits for tourism in protected areas. University of Waterloo, Canada. Viewed at http://www.areasprotegidas.net/sites/default/files/documentos/Park%20Tourism %20Concession%20Guidelines.pdf on 02/06/14.
Fung, A. (2006) “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance”. Public Administration Review 66(1):66–75.
Fung, A. (2015) “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future”. Public Administration Review 75(4):513–522.
Gastil, J., P. Levin. (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Wiley.
Glass, J.J. (1979) “Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques”. Journal of the American Planning Association (45):180-189.
Hardina, D. (2006) “Strategies for Citizen Participation and Empowerment in Non-profit, Community-Based Organizations”, Community Development, 37:4, 4-17.
Héritier, S. (2010) “Public Participation and Environmental management in Mountain National Parks”. Revue de géographie alpine/Journal of Alpine Research 98(1):169- 188.
Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe. (1996) “Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis”, Knowledge and Policy 8:40-60.
IAPP [International Association for Public Participation’. (2006) Planning for effect public participation. International Association for Public Participation, Denver, CO, USA
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., P. Sabatier (1993) “The study of the public policy process”. P.A. Sabatier and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder. Westview Press.
Laing, J.H., D. Lee, S.A. Moore, A. Wegner, B. Weiler. (2009). “Advancing conceptual understanding of partnerships between protected area agencies and the tourism industry: a postdisciplinary and multi-theoretical approach”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17:207–229
Leroux, T., M. Hirtle, L.N. Fortin. (1998) “An Overview of Public Consultation Mechanisms Developed to Address the Ethical and Social Issues Raised by Biotechnology”. Journal of Consumer Policy 21:445–481.
Leung, Y.-F., A. Spenceley, G. Hvenegaard and R. Buckley. (2015). Tourism and Visitor
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 101 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines towards sustainability. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Lockstone‐Binney L., K. Holmes, K. Smith, T. Baum. (2010). “Volunteers and volunteering in leisure: social science perspectives”. Leisure Studies 29(4):435-455.
Mannigel, E. (2008). “Integrating parks and people: How does participation work in protected area management?” Society and Natural Resources, 21(6):498–511.
Meadowcroft, J., Farrell, K.N., Spangenberg, J. (2005) “Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2):3-11.
Miller, A., Y.F. Leung, D.J. Ju. (2012) “Community-based monitoring of tourism resources as a tool for supporting the convention on biological biodiversity targets: a preliminary global assessment”. Parks 18(2):120-129.
New Zealand Government. (2007). New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015. Wellington. Viewed 22 June 2016 at http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications- research/publications/tourism/nz-tourism-strategy-2015.pdf
OECD. (2001) “Participatory decision-making for sustainable consumptions”. Policy case- studies series. Environment Directorate. ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2001)17/FINAL.
Pagdee, A., Y-S. Kim, P.J. Daugherty. (2006) “What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world”. Society and Natural Resources, 19:33–52.
Pestoff, V. (2014) “Collective action and the sustainability of coproduction”, Public Management Review, 16 (3):383–401.
Purdy, J.M. (2012) A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3):409-417.
Roberts, N. (2005) “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation”. American Review of Public Administration 34(4):315-53.
Rowe. G., L.J. Frewer. (2000) “Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science Technology and Human Values 25(1):3–29
Rowe, G., L.J. Frewer. (2005) “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms”. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30(2):251–290.
Schelhas, J., Sherman, R.E., Fahey, T.J., Lassoie, J.P. (2002) “Linking community and national park development: A case study from the Dominican Republic”. Natural Resource Forum, 26:140–149.
Slokkum, N. (2003) “Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner’s manual”. Retrieved
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 102 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
06/09/2015 at http://archive.unu.edu/hq/library/Collection/PDF_files/CRIS/PMT.pdf
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand [TIANZ]. (2014). Tourism 2025: Growing value together. Wellington. Viewed 22 June 2016 at http://www.tourism2025.org.nz/assets/Documents/TIA-T2025-Summ-Doc- WEB.pdf
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand. (no date 1). “Frequently asked questions”. Viewed 22 June 2016 at http://tourism2025.org.nz/about-tourism-2025/faqs/
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand [TIANZ]. (no date 2). “Tourism 2025 Record of stakeholder engagement”. Viewed 22 June 2016 at http://tourism2025.org.nz/assets/Documents/PDFs/Record-of-stakeholder- engagment-21-March-2014.pdf
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand [TIANZ]. (2006) Concession allocation by the Department of Conservation where supply is limited: submission. Viewed at www.tianz.org.nz on 01/07/07.
United Nations Environment Program and the World Tourism Organization (UNEP-WTO). (2005). “Making Tourism More Sustainable - A Guide for Policy Makers”. Madrid.
Thompson, A., Massyn, P.J., Pendry, J., Pastorelli, J. (2014). Tourism Concessions in Protected Natural Areas: Guidelines for Managers. United Nations Development Programme.
Underdal, A. (2008) “Determining the Causal Significance of Institutions: Accomplishments and Challenges”. Young et al (Eds). Institutional and Environmental Change. Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge. The MIT press. Pp. 49-78.
Waithaka, J., M. Wong, J. Ranger, E.A. Halpenny. (2012) “Conserving biodiversity through Parks Canada Volunteer Programme”. Parks 18(2):64-75.
Walters, L. C., J. Aydelotte, J. Miller. (2000) “Putting more public in policy analysis”. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359.
Whitaker, G.P. (1980). "Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery," Public Administration Review, 40:240-224.
Wesselink, A., J. Paavola, O. Fritsch, O. Renn. (2011). “Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives”. Environment and Planning A 43:2688-2704.
Woodley et al. (2012). “Meeting the Aichi Target 11”. Parks 18(1):23-36.
Wyman, M., J.R. Barborak, N. Inamdar, T. Stein. (2011). Best Practices for Tourism Concessions in Protected Areas: A Review of the Field. Forests (2): 2, 913-928.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 103 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Challenges to attaining “Accessible Tourism for All” in German destinations as part of a CSR-oriented approach (Conceptual Paper)
Andreas Kagermeier
University of Trier, Germany, [email protected]
Key words: Accessible Tourism, destination management, Corporate Social Responsibility, Germany
Summary
Although the discussion on Accessible Tourism has increased in intensity over the past 20 years, and by now there are even a few examples of Good Practices being implemented, it nevertheless must be pointed out that this approach is not yet so widespread that it can be seen as part of the mainstream – Accessible Tourism must still be regarded as a niche segment.
One of the reasons often cited for the relatively low penetration rate of offers designated as “Accessible Tourism” is the high costs of investment and the lack of short-term yields. Another hurdle to a broader offer of Accessible Tourism is a certain “barrier in the mind”. Broader dissemination of “Tourism for All” options represents a major challenge, particularly for destination management organisations. Destination management organisations are particularly well equipped to undertake such actions; however, merely implementing a general CSR programme is likely to be insufficient. This paper argues that supportive governmental structures have to be implemented if a more comprehensive level of Accessible Tourism is to be attained.
Basic principles of Accessible Tourism for All
In Germany (as well as in many other Western industrialised countries), the discussion on Accessible Tourism for All started at the end of the 1970s (cf. Ev. Akademie Loccum, 1976). During the 1980s, it remained a discussion in academic and charity circles (cf. Studienkreis für Tourismus, 1985). Since the 1990s, engagement with Accessible Tourism has significantly increased and has increasingly included tourism professionals, bringing about change in tourism policy (cf. UNWTO, 2013; GfK Belgium et al., 2014). In the Federal Republic of Germany, the 2002 Disability Discrimination Act (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz, BGG) (BMJV, 2002) marked a turning point in public policy (see also DZT, 2014). Before then, accessible facilities for persons with disabilities were primarily provided by non-profit and charitable providers as “protected” offers outside the normal market; the overcoming of barriers had often been assigned to the disabled themselves. As a legal standard, the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 104 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Disability Discrimination Act explicitly sets the goal of ensuring that disabled people have equal opportunities in their self-determined participation in social life.
An example of this change in perspective and the recognition of the responsibility of the supply side in tourism – to provide appropriate services that seek to fulfil this objective of equal opportunities – is documented in a publication by the German Automobile Association (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobilclub, ADAC) in the following year, the “Accessible Tourism for All” planning guide (Barrierefreier Tourismus für Alle, ADAC 2003). One of the key aspects developed in this planning guide, which is still valid and relevant today, is the emphasis put on the entire service chain as a whole. Accessible facilities are only adequate for the target groups if the entire tourism service chain is included (see Figure 1.).
Isolated offers of individual Organisation Arrival & Post-visit service providers (e.g. in the (preparation, departure feedback accommodation sector) fall information, short when the other stations of booking) Orientation the customer path, from information and booking on Trips at the destination arrival and the range of Mobility at the different activities during the Other destination stay at the destination, are not services prepared for visitors with Accommo- disabilities. Even at this stage it Leisure and sports dation becomes clear that, although activities the individual service providers Catering & are responsible for providing Cultural activities / gastronomy sightseeing adequate services for visitors Shopping with disabilities, Tourism for All Figure 2: The entire tourism service chain as a key can only fulfil its mission if extra starting point for Accessible Tourism approaches emphasis is placed on the (Source: Own design following ADAC 2003, p. 21) coordination and harmonisation of the individual elements in the service chain. As a result, local and regional destination management organisations (DMOs) and the marketing organisations of the federal states (Landesmarketingorganisation, LMO) are particularly challenged when appropriate Tourism for All packages are to be created. At the same time, no single service provider at a destination can achieve the goal of creating a comprehensive Tourism for All product on its own. As a result, a coordinating and governing institution including all respective stakeholders is necessary to achieve this. However, this has implications for the voluntary nature fundamental to the Corporate Social Responsibility paradigm.
Two studies commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Bundeswirtschaftsministerium, BMWi, 2003 and 2008) address the importance of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 105 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
promoting the concept of Tourism for All and facilitating appropriate measures for it. The objective of the first study (BMWi, 2003) was to create awareness among the relevant tourism stakeholders about the economic potential of this particular market segment. As a result, the study focused primarily on quantitative aspects of the demand potential of disabled people in the tourist market. The study convincingly demonstrated that Germans with disabilities have a travel intensity rate (i.e. participation rate) of about 50%; this is almost a third lower than the average of the German population as a whole (BMWi, 2003, p. 17). One reason for this below-average intensity of travel is due to a lack of supply; almost 40% of disabled people responded in the representative survey that they avoid travelling due to a lack of options (BMWi, 2003, p. 19). The potential of people with disabilities would be even more attractive for the German tourism industry because not only are they more likely to spend their holidays within Germany, they are also likely to do so during the off-season (BMWi, 2003, p. 18 et seq.). As a result, not only was the current economic relevance of travelling by people with disabilities shown to be about €2.5 billion; the study also revealed an additional untapped potential estimated to be up to nearly €2 billion. This further bolstered the arguments regarding Accessible Tourism.
In addition to this economic perspective, another virtue of the study is the way it tackles head-on one of the key objections to the implementation of Accessible Tourism offers: the high costs involved. The model of the “pyramid of accessibility” (see Figure2) makes it clear that the basis as well as the starting point of Accessible Tourism lies not in (cost-intensive) packages tailor-made for individuals; instead, the foundation consists of intangible psychological aspects.
Tailor- made Pyramid of accessibility offers
Differentiated offers
Pragmatic Degree of offers accessibility
Specific investment costs Offer of information
Open mindedness and attentiveness
Figure 3: The “pyramid of accessibility” (Source: Own design following BMWi 2003, p. 36)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 106 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Empathy towards people with disabilities and providing them with a warm welcome is critical, and can often compensate for suboptimal physical conditions. For these reasons, one way to orient the tourism industry toward disabled individuals in the market would be to reduce fear of contact and the threshold of inhibition.
The second study, dating from 2008, used this foundation to consequently focus on particular strategic implementation aspects. It discussed financial funding opportunities for Accessible Tourism for All as well as the relevance of various coordinated marketing approaches at the destination level and the importance of networking and cooperation among stakeholders. The authors of the study also emphasised that after the initial phase – as in many other tourism segments – at the stage of development and market penetration, the role of quality standards increases in importance. This in turn means that certification and approval processes must be further developed and standardised.
Since just before the turn of the millennium, development in Germany has of course been intertwined with European and international activities. One milestone at the European level was a manual publish by the European Commission in 1997, “Making Europe accessible for tourists with disabilities: Handbook for the tourism industry”; the European Year of People with Disabilities in 2003 created a similar impetus. Despite the wide range of activities, for example, at the level of the European Network for Accessible Tourism (ENAT) established in 2006, by 2012, the head of ENAT, Ivor Ambrose had noted that nevertheless no clear coordinated road map had yet been created for the development of a comprehensive approach.
One study commissioned by the European Commission, entitled “Economic impact and travel patterns of accessible tourism in Europe” (GfK Belgium et al., 2014) can be considered to a certain degree to be a European-level continuation of the aforementioned German national-level predecessors (BMWi, 2003 and 2008). In the EU, the volume of physically- challenged travellers is estimated to be nearly 800 million single-day or multi-day trips a year (GfK Belgium et al., 2014, p. 22). Like their predecessors at the national level, the authors of this study also come to the conclusion that this amount could be increased considerably – up to 40% – if the range of offers was optimised. However, the study also made it clear that in the future the expansion of accessible travel will become even more important in light of demographic changes. In other words, Accessible Tourism faces a growing market. Ultimately, the objective of this study was to increase the acceptance of accessible offers on the side of service providers. Conversely, however, this objective also implies that the idea of Accessible Tourism for All has generally not yet been developed in many destinations and in the tourism industry, even 20 years after the start of an intensive discussion in scientific and tourism industry circles. Snapshots of what is possible: examples of Good Practice
Although we are still far from a comprehensive range of offers in Tourism for All, many options nevertheless have emerged over the last 20 years that can be seen as “Good Practice” examples and that show the potential of those options. Although a few individual
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 107 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
initiatives (cf. Neumann and Kagermeier, 2016) can be found, in which accommodation enterprises in particular have tried to cater to guests with disabilities, there is no evidence in Germany of any real bottom-up networks of private tourism stakeholders that have attempted to cover the whole service chain and thus provide complete holidays for handicapped tourists.
Given the fact that the entire travel chain must be covered, the following examples are not voluntary bottom-up CSR activities of individual private-sector service providers. Instead, local or regional DMOs and LMOs generally play the roles of initiators and/or facilitators. Even though the participation and engagement of private tourism stakeholders in approaches initiated by the DMOs or LMOs is voluntary, the impetus and supervision lies in the hands of (primarily public) organisations. Of course the presence of a few private stakeholders addressing accessibility issues in a destination helps DMOs to focus on accessibility aspects themselves, but in any case the comprehensive chain-oriented approach to services is usually brought into the discussion by local, regional or state level authorities.
AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele (Barrier-free Destinations Working Group)
One example of Good Practice in Germany is the “AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele” (Accessible or Barrier-free Destinations Working Group). This is a partnership of currently nine urban and regional DMOs:
1) Eifel Tourismus Gesellschaft mbH
2) Erfurt Tourismus & Marketing GmbH (owned by the City of Erfurt)
3) Tourismusverband “Fränkisches Seenland” (promoting the area around the Franconian Lakes)
4) Magdeburg Marketing Kongress und Tourismus GmbH (owned by the City of Magdeburg)
5) Tourismusverband Lausitzer Seenland e. V. (focusing on the area of Lower Lusatia)
6) Ostfriesland Tourismus GmbH (East Frisia Tourism)
7) Romantischer Rhein Tourismus GmbH (RRT) (Romantic Rhine Tourism)
8) Tourismusverband Ruppiner Land e.V. (Ruppin country) and
9) Tourismusverband Sächsische Schweiz e.V. (Saxon Switzerland) (see Figure 3).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 108 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The mission statement of the working group includes the following goals:
• To develop Accessible Tourism in the regional destinations and in Germany as a whole
• To establish a network of “accessible destinations in Germany
• To create transparency in the provision of Accessible Tourism
• To regularly exchange experiences
• To intensify cooperation with German political and administrative bodies as well as civic organisations
• To undertake joint marketing activities
• To maintain www.barrierefreie-reiseziele.de, a jointly operated website (AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele, 2015, p. 1).
The working group was founded in 2008 by six destinations. Activities centre on two poles: on the one hand, there is an internal dimension of creating synergies through cooperation and exchange of experiences in a network. On the other hand, the working group has attempted to join forces for the purpose of communication to the external market, leading to increased visibility of Accessible Tourism activities – at the end of the day, of course, this hopefully leads to an increase in tourists with disabilities at the member destinations. In its efforts to increase visibility and awareness of tourism opportunities not only among domestic customers, but also among disabled tourists internationally, the working group has cooperated with Figure 4: Members of the “AG Barrierefreie the German National Tourist Board Reiseziele” (Working Group Accessible Destinations) in (Deutsche Zentrale für Tourismus, DZT; Germany cf. AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele, 2015, (Source: AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele, 2015, p. 3) p. 1) since 2010.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 109 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Although this certainly is a remarkable initiative, it must not be overlooked that, if we take into consideration that the Federal Statistical Office lists almost 150 travel areas in Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2014, C-3.8;. see also Kagermeier, 2015 p. 195), only a tiny portion of the destinations have signed up as members.
The fact that during the last eight years only three destinations (the City of Magdeburg, Niederlausitz and Romantischer Rhein) have joined the cooperation network means, conversely, that there is no dynamic membership development. Moreover, it must be noted that the member destinations are certainly not among the top destinations in Germany as measured by the share of tourists or the most dynamic development of the overnight stays. In particular, none of the so-called Magic Cities (Dresden, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover, Cologne, Leipzig, Munich, Nuremberg and Stuttgart; DZT, 2016) – the metropolitan destinations in Germany which attract the lion’s share of international tourists and have demonstrated significant growth in tourism figures (Kagermeier, 2009, p. 79 or 2015, p. 210) – are members of the network. To a certain extent, the network can be characterised as an association of (mainly rural) “B” destinations that focus on Accessible Tourism in the hope of achieving a competitive advantage and strengthening their position.
Simultaneously, a hypothesis can be put forth that (given the fact that private stakeholders and representatives at the local level are not capable of meeting all the needs of customers along the entire service chain) even the regional level does not yet possess an adequate organisational framework to position Tourism for All successfully.
Good Practice at the federal state level
The previous paragraph formulated a hypothesis stating that the regional level of destinations probably lacks the resources to catalyse dynamic development in Accessible Tourism. So it seems likely that the level of the federal states in Germany (Länder) with their LMOs (the tourism marketing organisations of the federal states) may be the appropriate frame for fostering Accessible Tourism.
Some LMOs have put a specific focus on the subject in recent years. In addition to Thuringia (Thüringer Tourismus, 2007) and Brandenburg (since 2008; see TMB, 2012), Rhineland- Palatinate (RPT, 2012) and, more recently, North Rhine-Westphalia (Tourismus NRW, 2014) and Saxony (TMGS, 2015) have in particular tried to spur changes at the federal state level. Of course it is not only by accident that the LMOs are likely to get particularly involved in aspects of Accessible Tourism in states where regional destinations are members of the AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele. Indeed, the AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele was founded and still has its headquarters in the city of Erfurt, the capital of Thuringia. As a result, it is obvious that interaction takes place between the local and regional DMO stakeholders and the federal state level.
Nevertheless, the level of engagement varies widely among Germany’s 16 federal states. One indicator of this can be seen on the websites of the 16 LMOs. As of February 2016, on eight of these websites, information on Accessible Tourism is placed on the homepage
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 110 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
(including the five states mentioned above for their high level of engagement). On five LMO websites, information on accessibility aspects can be found following a more general link from the homepage (such as “Service”, “Info”, “Travel Planning” or “Searching and Booking”). Finally, on the websites of three LMOs no information on this aspect could be identified even on the second level. This indicates that Accessible Tourism is not yet a mainstream component of market communication in all LMOs.
However, even the states (such as Rhineland-Palatinate) that show remarkable attention to Accessible Tourism concerns mention only limited response from private stakeholders in the tourism industry.
High-quality Accessible Tourism aspects already started to played a role in 2008, when Rhineland-Palatinate adopted its “Tourism Strategy 2015” (MWVLW-RLP, 2008, p. 29). The LMO responsible, “Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH” (RPT), thereafter reinforced the importance of this aspect in 2009, starting the “Accessible Rhineland-Palatinate” project ("Barrierefreies Rheinland-Pfalz”) to inform target enterprises and tourism professionals of the importance of the subject as well as to create attractive barrier-free packages. A manual for tourism practitioners, “On the way to Accessible Tourism in Rhineland-Palatinate” was published in 2012. It contained general information on the medium-term and long-term importance of Accessible Tourism as an economic factor. This can be interpreted as an argument to motivate private stakeholders to get more involved in Accessible Tourism. In addition to a general introduction, the manual provides practical examples and concrete assistance for the improvement of accessibility. This manual also later served as a model for similar publications by the states of North Rhine-Westphalia (Tourismus NRW, 2014) and Saxony (TMGS, 2015). In addition, Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH (following the example of Brandenburg; cf. TMB 2012) has offered seminars and training for tourism professionals to assist them in addressing the needs of different groups of disabled guests. To further stimulate interest and raise awareness about Accessible Tourism issues, in 2015 a contest was even launched, awarding outstanding projects in the industry (RPT, 2015).
As a result of the different activities in Rhineland-Palatinate, at this point (February 2016) there are 163 accommodation offers listed which address disabled guests (RPT 2016). 99 of them are even certified according to a national rating system (see DSFT 2015). While this may sound impressive, one has to be aware that the number of accommodation facilities in Rheinland-Palatinate is about 3,500 (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2014, C-3.5). In other words, only some 5% are oriented to Accessible Tourism. However, it is important to take into account the challenge of offering not only accessible accommodation facilities, but the rest of the service chain as well (see Figure 1). In light of this, the RPT website includes 100 dining offers focusing on disabled guests (36 of which are certified) as well as 164 offers for leisure and sports activities (101 certified) and 93 offers in the category “Service & Transport” (mainly Tourist Information Offices; 70 certified).
Even if the absolute figures may still have a lot of growing to do, one has to look at other federal states to appreciate the level of attention given toAccessible Tourism in Rhineland- Palatinate. Bavaria is the state with the highest tourism figures in Germany. With about
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 111 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
12,500 officially registered accommodation facilities (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2014, C-3.5), more than one fifth of the accommodation facilities in Germany are concentrated in this state. However, BayTM, the Bavarian tourism agency, lists only 196 accommodation facilities (BayTM, 2016); this represents only about 1.5% of the registered units. Of these, only four (!) are certified according to the national rating system (DSFT 2015). The Bavarian LMO’s lack of interest in Accessible Tourism is further demonstrated in other areas of the service chain, underscored by a mere 116 cultural and leisure facilities in Bavaria listed on the BayTM website as being oriented to disabled guests (with only eight of them certified). Information on restaurants and other service facilities are not available at all on the BayTM website.
This contribution started with the hypothesis that – given the complexity of a complete tourism experience along the entire service chain – an individual tourism service provider (whether it is in the hotel or restaurant business, or provides other tourism-related services for activities at a destination) is usually unable to develop a comprehensive Accessible Tourism product. With the exception of major cities, the same seems to be true at the local level. As a result, it became necessary to research DMOs at the regional level to discover the level of their voluntary commitment to Accessible Tourism. However, at this level only very few urban or rural destinations demonstrated significant interest in this market segment. Therefore, a second round of investigation took place to look at the federal state level (federal states are the bodies in Germany responsible for tourism development). Even though some examples of Good Practice could be identified, the voluntary nature of focusing on Accessible Tourism results in a high degree of heterogeneity, with some federal states showing a rather low degree of interest in this field. But even in federal states with a relatively intense focus on Accessible Tourism operating with different soft instruments to facilitate more widespread activity by private stakeholders in the area of Accessible Tourism, it nevertheless must be conceded that Accessible Tourism is still a niche segment and far from reaching a mainstream level.
Therefore, one intermediate conclusion that can be drawn is that – apart from voluntary engagement committed to the CSR approach at all levels (starting with private tourism enterprise, local and regional DMOs, and up to the LMOs) – it is necessary to ask what role the federal government is currently playing and what its role could be if Accessible Tourism is to enter the mainstream. The challenge at the national level
In light of the fact that voluntary approaches at the local, regional and federal state level have failed to bring the Accessible Tourism concept out of the niche segment and that it is still quite far from entering the mainstream, these last few paragraphs look at the role of the national level of government.
In Germany, the first phase of specific measures at the national level occurred during discussions in preparation of the aforementioned 2002 Disability Discrimination Act (BMJV, 2002) as well as after the adoption of this law. To stimulate the discussion and provide some arguments on the positive economic effects of Accessible Tourism, the German Federal
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 112 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy commissioned the first study on Accessible Tourism (BMWi 2003). The intention was to provide a soft instrument to create awareness among private tourism professionals and to shift their focus to the Accessible Tourism issues.
Prior to that, in 1999, the Tourism for All National Coordination Board (Nationale Koordinationsstelle Tourismus für Alle e.V., NatKo, 2007) was founded as a central organisation for Accessible Tourism in Germany, sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Health. NatKo is an umbrella organisation of different national disability associations and was established as a non-profit organisation. The organisation tries to develop Accessible Tourism options in cooperation with different tourism stakeholders. Following the Disability Discrimination Act, in 2005 NatKo signed a “target agreement” (Zielvereinbarung) with the national hotel association (Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststättenverband, DeHoGa) on standards for Accessible Tourism in the hotel industry (NatKo 2005, p. 2). On a voluntary basis, the hotel industry was supposed to provide offers which would be appropriate for guests with different kinds of disabilities. The target agreement marked a turning point in the discussion, because the whole range of disabilities was taken into account (after a long period in which the chief focus was on mobility constraints); nevertheless, the results of this voluntary approach have remained limited.
A second phase of more intensive activity at the national level can be identified around the discussion on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD). The convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on 13 December 2006 (UN 2006) and came into effect in 2008. Germany ratified the convention in 2009 (BMAS, 2011, p. 10). While Article 30 of the Convention deals with “Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport” (UN 2006), the German National Action Plan on the implementation of the convention included a short paragraph on tourism as well (BMAS, 2011, p. 82). However, the position of the German government has remained rather vague. Apart from a mention of the AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele initiative, the document also refers to the necessity of certification activities, the promotion of Accessible Tourism offers and the training of staff, but without giving much more detail.
In any case, as a result of this action plan, in 2011 the BMWi commissioned the DSFT (Deutsches Seminar für Tourismus), a consulting agency, to undertake a second attempt to establish a nationwide certification system in cooperation with NatKo. This certification system was intended to be based on NatKo’s target agreement, but would include not only accommodation, but all aspects of the tourism market (Schrader & Nowak, 2015, p. 2). The starting phase of the project – which the author has been partially involved in as a member of an accompanying working group – was marked by intense discussions between representatives of the national project and the LMOs that had already been engaged in Accessible Tourism and worked on certification systems at the federal state level (see the previous paragraph) after the national certification system (DSFT 2015) was implemented in 2013 (Schrader & Nowak, 2015, p. 24). As already argued in the previous paragraph, the participation level is quite unequal in the different federal states. At the same time, it is necessary to reiterate that even in those states with a rather intensive focus on Accessible
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 113 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Tourism, there is still a great deal of room for improvement in terms of the amount of certified tourism offers.
In light of the rather poor results of Accessible Tourism in Germany after more than two decades of debate on the subject, the limited engagement of the federal government must be assessed as insufficient. Even though it is conceded that the subject (with economic and social aspects) needs the cooperation of several ministries (including the responsible bodies for higher and vocational education as far as training and awareness are concerned), neither the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy nor the one responsible for Social Affairs have demonstrated very intensive engagement in the subject, sometimes referring to the other ministry as being more responsible. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the interaction on this topic between the federal government and the states could also be improved. Finally, the role of national umbrella organisations, such as those for the hotel industry (DeHoGa) and the tourism industry (Deutscher Tourismusverband, DTV), as well as other national associations of tourism-related infrastructure seems quite limited.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to outline the current state of approaches to Accessible Tourism in the tourism industry as part of approaches to CSR in tourism. It became clear that the level of implementation must be characterised as suboptimal. Since individual private tourism enterprises are usually unable to provide a comprehensive Accessible Tourism product along the entire service chain, the role of regional DMOs and federal states LMOs to coordinate the development of integrated Accessible Tourism offers has been emphasised. Research of their activities in creating integrated Accessible Tourism products showed a high heterogeneity among different destinations as well as among the different states.
At the same time, the question arises whether and to what extent relying on a merely voluntary approach following the CSR paradigm to achieve Accessibility Tourism mainstreaming seems feasible. Now that the questions of standardisation and certification of Accessible Tourism products have been solved at the national level, this aspect cannot serve as an excuse for inactivity at the level of private tourism enterprises. At the same time, the development of “Design for All” in recent years has shown that accessible solutions for disabled guests do not have to dissuade other guests (see, e.g. Neumann et al., 2014).
One of the remaining excuses for a wait-and-see attitude among private tourism enterprises is the economic question of return on investment when engaging in Accessible Tourism “hardware”. Even if this argument might to a certain extent be more forceful, it still has to be regarded as one of the major constraints for more intensive voluntary engagement. Therefore, after several decades of hoping for voluntary engagement according to the norms of corporate social responsibility in the tourism industry, it seems to be time to admit that a mere CSR approach is not sufficient to fully achieve the goal of Accessible Tourism.
This means that the governmental authorities (at all levels, including the European level)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 114 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
must be challenged to accompany their volunteer-oriented approach with “harder” measures. According to the traditional “carrot and stick” concept, clear positive stimuli (like financial incentives) as well as legislation seem to be necessary if the goal of Accessible Tourism is to be achieved to a greater extent. The integration of inclusive aspects in tourism educational programmes at the vocational and university level would also be highly desirable in this context.
Nevertheless, the most challenging aspects in the implementation of “barrier-free” tourism still seem to be the “barriers in the minds” (see, e.g. Eichhorn & Buhalis 2011, p. 54 et seq.) of the relevant stakeholders, regardless of whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, and which level they are on. As a result, it cannot be expected that Accessible Tourism will be achieved without a more global transformation towards a more inclusive society.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 115 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
ADAC – Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (2003). Barrierefreier Tourismus für Alle. Eine Planungshilfe für Tourismus-Praktiker zur erfolgreichen Entwicklung barrierefreier Angebote. München.
AG Barrierefreie Reiseziele (2016). Barrierefreie Reiseziele in Deutschland. Pressemappe. Erfurt
Ambrose, I. (2012). European Policies for Accessible Tourism. In Buhalis, D., Darcy S. & Ambrose. I. (Eds.), Best practise in accessible Tourism. Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Channel View Publications, p. 19- 35.
BayTM – BAYERN TOURISMUS Marketing GmbH (2016). Bayern barrierefrei. Retrieved from www.bayern.by/tourismus-fuer-alle.
BMAS – Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2011). Unser Weg in eine inklusive Gesellschaft. Der Nationale Aktionsplan der Bundesregierung zur Umsetzung der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention. Berlin.
BMJV – Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (2002). Gesetz zur Gleichstellung behinderter Menschen (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz – BGG). Retrieved from http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bgg/gesamt.pdf.
BMWi – Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2003). Ökonomische Impulse eines barrierefreien Tourismus für alle. Eine Untersuchung im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie. Berlin (= BMWi- Dokumentation, 526).
BMWi – Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2008). Barrierefreier Tourismus für Alle in Deutschland – Erfolgsfaktoren und Maßnahmen zur Qualitätssteigerung. Berlin.
DSFT – Deutsches Seminar für Tourismus (2015). Prüfsystem zur Barrierefreiheit. Qualitätskriterien. Version 1.2.7. 08/2015. Berlin
DZT – Deutsche Zentrale für Tourismus (2014). Barrierefrei. Barrierefreier Tourismus in Deutschland. Frankfurt.
DZT – Deutsche Zentrale für Tourismus (2016). Magic Cities: the ten stars of Germany. Frankfurt. Retrieved from www.germany.travel/en/towns-cities-culture/towns- cities/magic-cities/magic-cities.html.
Eichhorn, V. & Buhalis, D. (2011). Accessibility: A key objective for the tourism industry. . In Buhalis, D., Darcy S. & Ambrose. I. (Eds.), Best practise in accessible Tourism. Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 116 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Channel View Publications. p. 46-61.
ENAT – European Network for Accessible Tourism (2016). Working together to make Tourism in Europa Accessible for All. Retrieved from www.accessibletourism.org/.
European Commission. Directorate-General XXIII — Tourism Unit (1997). Making Europe accessible for tourists with disabilities. Handbook for the tourism industry. Brussels.
Ev. Akademie Loccum (1976). Urlaub für und mit Behinderte(n). Chancen und Schwierigkeiten der Integration. Rehburg-Loccum (= Loccumer Protokolle 10/1976).
GfK Belgium, University of Surrey, NeumannConsult & ProAsolutions (2014). Economic impact and travel patterns of accessible tourism in Europe. Service Contract SI2.ACPROCE052481700 – European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry. Brussels.
Kagermeier, A. (2009). Intensivierung der Auslandsmarktorientierung im Städtetourismus – Optionen auch für kleinere städtetouristische Destinationen? In Soboll, A. (Ed.), Deutschland als Incoming-Destination. Mannheim: MetGis, p. 69 - 90 (= Studien zur Freizeit- und Tourismusforschung, 2)
Kagermeier, A. (2015). Tourismusgeographie. Eine Einführung. München: UVK/Lucius.
MWVLW-RLP – Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau Rheinland-Pfalz (2008). Tourismusstrategie 2015. Markttrends erkennen, Potenziale nutzen. Mainz.
NatKo – Nationale Koordinationsstelle Tourismus für Alle e.V. (2005). Mindeststandards für die Kategorisierung barrierefreier Beherbergungs- und Gastronomiebetriebe in Deutschland. Berlin.
NatKo – Nationale Koordinationsstelle Tourismus für Alle e.V. (2007). Tourism for All. Berlin Düsseldorf
Neumann, P., Knigge, M., Iffländer, K. & Kesting S. (2014). Besser für die Kunden – besser fürs Geschäft. Design für Alle in der Praxis – ein Leitfaden für Unternehmen. Münster/Hamburg.
Neumann, P. & Kagermeier, A. (2016). Tourismus für Alle als Bestandteil der CSR- Orientierung im Tourismus. In Lund-Durlacher, D., Fifka, M. & Reiser, D. (Eds.): Tourismus und CSR, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag (in print).
RPT – Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH (2012). Auf dem Weg zum Barrierefreien Tourismus in Rheinland-Pfalz. Informationen für Regionen, Orte und Betriebe. Koblenz. Retrieved from rlp.tourismusnetzwerk.info/download/140521_Leitfaden 2014.pdf.
RPT – Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH (2015). Wettbewerb für barrierefreie Tourismus- Angebote gestartet. Retrieved from
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 117 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
rlp.tourismusnetzwerk.info/2015/02/02/wettbewerb-fuer-barrierefreie-tourismus- angebote-startet-heute/.
RPT – Rheinland-Pfalz Tourismus GmbH (2015). Barrierefreie Angebote in Rheinland-Pfalz. Retrieved from www.gastlandschaften.de/urlaubsthemen/barrierefreies- reisen/suchen-buchen/.
Schrader R. (DSFT) & Nowak, A. (NatKo) (2015). Das neue Kennzeichnungssystem „Reisen für Alle“ für die gesamte Tourismusbranche. Presentation at “Tag des Barrierefreien Tourismus” during the ITB Tourism fair in Berlin on 6 March 2015. Retrieved from www.germany.travel/media/content/deutschland_fuer_1/menschen_mit_barriere n/vortraege_2015/Das_neue_Kennzeichnungssystem_Reisen_fuer_Alle_fuer_die_g esamte_Tourismusbranche.pdf
Studienkreis für Tourismus (1985). Behinderte im Urlaub. Starnberg.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2014). Tourismus. Tourismus in Zahlen 2013. Wiesbaden.
TMB – Tourismus-Marketing Brandenburg GmbH (2012). Ratgeber: Gäste mit Mobilitätseinschränkungen. Auszug aus den Unterlagen der Seminarreihe Brandenburg für Alle – barrierefreier Tourismus für Hoteliers, Gastronomen und weitere Tourismusanbieter. Potsdam. Retrieved from http://www.barrierefrei- brandenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/tmb_upload/dokumente/1_Ratgeber_Mo bilit%C3%A4t.pdf
TMGS – Tourismus Marketing Gesellschaft Sachsen mbH (2015). Tourismus für Alle in Sachsen. Ein Praktikerleitfaden. Dresden. Retrieved from www.sachsen- tourismus.de/fileadmin/userfiles/TMGS/Startseite/ Reisethemen/Sachsen_Barrierefrei/Praktikerleitfaden_Web.pdf.
Tourismus NRW e. V. (2014). Praktikerleitfaden Barrierefreier Tourismus in NRW. Düsseldorf. Retrieved from www.touristiker-nrw.de/wp- content/uploads/2014/11/Barrierefreier.Tourismus-NRW-Praktikerleitfaden.pdf.
Thüringer Tourismus GmbH (2007). Thüringen barrierefrei. Reisetipps und Freizeitangebote. Erfurt
UN – United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York. Retrieved from www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
UNWTO (2013). Recommendations on Accessible Tourism. Madrid.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 118 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Analysing CSR Practices in Food Operations: A case study of holiday resorts in Gran Canaria and Antalya
Dagmar Lund-Durlacher* & Hannes Antonschmidt^ & Klaus-Peter Fritz°
*MODUL University Vienna, Austria, [email protected]
^MODUL University Vienna, Austria, [email protected] °FHWien der WKW, Austria, [email protected]
Key words: Sustainable Food Operations, Food, Food Management, Package Holidays
Introduction
Following the definition of the European Commission, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in tourism can be defined as a guiding business policy whereby tourism companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their own business mission, strategies and operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (European Commission 2016). CSR is closely linked with the principle of sustainability and is seen as an instrument to implement those principles (Lund-Durlacher 2012). CSR in tourism businesses implies to assume responsibility for the natural environment, employees, tourists, partners and businesses in the supply chain, the local community in the destination as well as the society as a whole based on the triple bottom line approach. The theoretical framework and practical approaches of CSR in hotel food operations has only been little explored so far. Therefore the paper uses a theoretical framework for sustainability principles of food operations and assesses their practical implementation as part of CSR strategies of food service providers in holiday destinations.
The paper is embedded in a larger research study which aimed at defining the concept of sustainable food in the holiday context and at identifying strategies and practices for creating a more sustainable gastronomy offer for package tourists. The project was funded by Futouris, the sustainability initiative of the German travel industry. Research included a literature review, best practice analyses, field visits as well as a consumer survey.
The goal of this paper is to assess the current practices of sustainable food operations in two destinations which play a significant role for the German outbound market and to identify drivers and barriers for implementing sustainable food operations in holiday resorts and cruise ships.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 119 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The concept of sustainable food on holidays
As a methodology, a systematic review of multiple definitions of sustainable food was applied. Sources consisted of different definitions of sustainable food from academic literature, reports of public sector bodies and practical guidelines.
The sample consisted of 15 studies of which definitions were extracted. A high homogeneity within the dimensions was found, and contradictory elements were not identified. The definitions’ content is reviewed below. The order of the categories corresponds to the weight the dimensions have within the definitions.
Environment
The environmental pillar plays the most important role within the definitions. "Maintaining healthy ecosystems" (American Public Health Association 2007), while causing as "low environmental impacts" (Burlingame and Dernini 2011) as possible is a major requirement. Furthermore, sustainable food is "protective and respectful of biodiversity" (Burlingame and Dernini 2011), preventing "the irreversible loss of natural resources" (Freibauer et al. 2011) and protecting "the stock of natural capital and ecosystem service" (Gössling and Hall 2013). Less mentioned environmental challenges are animal welfare ("combating animal cruelty", The Sustainable Restaurant Association 2015) and "organically produced food" (von Koerber 2010). Individual/health
Sustainable food "contribute[s] to human health" (Sustainable Development Commission 2011) and is a "nutritionally dense product" (Padilla et al. 2012), that "facilitates the physical, spiritual and social well-being" (Öko-Institut e.V. und Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) 2007). Less often mentioned is the aspect of food safety, with sustainable food "preventing food-borne diseases" (Sustainable Development Commission 2011).
Society
The social issues raised by the definitions highlight on the one hand the demand side, stressing the need for "accessible food to all" (Tendall et al. 2015) that "should be affordable to all people" (Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung, Weinbau und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz 2015) and "adequate for the daily routine of consumers" (Hain et al. 2005). Some also consider the supply side, e.g. the requirement of sustainable food to “contribute to thriving local economies” (Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming 2013), to provide "decently rewarded employment along the supply chain" (Sustainable Development Commission 2011) and "fair trading conditions" (Öko-Institut e.V. und Institut für sozial- ökologische Forschung (ISOE) 2007).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 120 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Culture
The most important topics within the cultural pillar are to "safeguard food traditions and culture" (Padilla et al. 2012) by buying food of "local production" (American Public Health Association 2007) in order to keep the "connection to the region" (Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung, Weinbau und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz 2015). Some definitions include the requirement for "diversity of consumption habits and practices" (Öko-Institut e.V. und Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) 2007). Rarely mentioned is the requirement for food to be "culturally acceptable" (Burlingame and Dernini 2011), i.e. to respect the conventions of the place where the food is offered.
Economy
Economic considerations play only a minor role within the definitions. Those definitions that take the economic pillar into account focus on the requirement to "optimize food output" (Gössling and Hall 2013) through "higher resource efficiency" (Pack et al. 2005), one even claims "shifting from an approach in terms of productivity to an approach in terms of sufficiency" (Freibauer et al. 2011).
Methods
Based on a literature review, a systematic assessment of food related CSR certification schemes, and the analysis of best practices, two research tools have been developed:
• A checklist for assessing the sustainability of the hotels’ kitchen and F&B departments containing 44 criteria along the food production process such as food purchasing, preparation, presentation and waste management as well as working conditions for staff and engagement with society. The collection of data in the hotels took place by analysing company reports, standards, guidelines, supplier lists, own observations and interviews with staff at the management level from different departments (chefs, F&B managers, facility managers, general managers).
• Furthermore, a structured interview guideline has been developed in order to explore managers’ attitudes and expectations towards sustainable food, the perceived drivers and barriers as well as the opportunities for implementing more sustainable food operations.
For the field visits, the two destinations Gran Canaria (Spain) and Antalya (Turkey) were chosen, because they differ regarding their agricultural production levels in their hinterland, which was assumed to influence the food purchasing practices. In addition, both destinations generate high volumes of German package tourists and are seen as major tourist destinations for the German outbound market. Altogether, six holiday resorts in Gran Canaria and five in Antalya were assessed by document analyses, observation and qualitative interviews with 26 staff members on the management level.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 121 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Findings
Sporadic sustainable food measures were found (such as offering local food on the buffet, or providing smaller containers and single portions on the buffet), but sustainable food strategies were merely incorporated in the strategies of the visited holiday resorts. However, managers showed high interest in the topic and were very much engaged in the assessment process and interviews.
The findings are structured along the food production process, starting with food purchasing.
Food purchasing
The purchasing of local products is highly influenced by the agricultural production level in the destination. While in Gran Canaria, purchasing local food is limited and more expensive than imported goods, there is plenty of low-cost local food available in Antalya as the agricultural production level is very high. Hence, hotels in Antalya purchase food almost entirely from local suppliers, whilst in Gran Canaria the share of locally produced food is small, although the quality of local food is highly rated.
“The potatoes here from the island are excellent. Many varieties can be bought in the supermarket. […] The potatoes from the UK are cheaper than the potatoes, which come from the North of the island. The same happens with cheese: the cheese from Holland is cheaper than the cheese from here. The quality of the local cheese is much better – if I want quality, I’d rather pay more. […] The government would have to urgently do something about this, otherwise we lose these farmers" (Assistant to the General Manager, 5*-Hotel, Gran Canaria).
"We buy hardly any imported food, because they are much more expensive. […] There is a very high tax on imported goods, for example on alcohol" (Purchasing manager, 5*Hotel, Antalya).
"Because the owners are from Turkey, they put strong emphasis on local products from local producers to be bought” (General Manager, 5*-Hotel, Antalya).
Barriers to buy local food are the high prices due to high agricultural production costs in Gran Canaria and the risk of not receiving the quantity needed. Drivers for purchasing local food in Antalya are the low costs, but also the fact that high value is placed on fresh, and seasonal food and that hotel owners and managers still take social responsibility for their community and hence support small, local producers. Currently, food purchases are primarily dictated by costs.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 122 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
"The chef makes sure that we buy fresh products. Only seasonal products are bought and offered to the guests. […] The aim is to offer healthy, fresh and seasonal food in order to differentiate form other hotels” (General Manager, 5*-Hotel, Antalya).
"The guests know very well about our offer, and we also strongly communicate what is in season. For example, in April, we organize a strawberry Festival, or later a peach and watermelon festival. The guests know then that these products are in season and fresh. None of the guests has ever complained that there was not watermelon offered in winter" (Marketing Manager, 5*Hotel, Antalya).
In both destinations, organic and fair trade food plays hardly any role. The level of knowledge about endangered animal and plant species is low, but all interviewees indicated that endangered animals and plants are not used as food ingredients because they fully trust their suppliers who would comply with the legal regulations.
Presentation of food
The amount of available food per guest per day depends on the respective board arrangement and is highest with all-inclusive arrangements. In particular, Turkey is known and preferred for its large and multifaceted all-inclusive buffets.
In Gran Canaria, more meat was found on the menus and buffets. While in Gran Canaria, only twice the amount of vegetables and fruits in relation to animal products is provided at the buffet, it is three times in Turkey. In Turkey, the offering of naturally seasonal, fresh and regional foods is shaped by culture and tradition.
"Turkey is a country of vegetables. There are fresh vegetables every day, and it's healthier to eat vegetables. […] In Turkey much more vegetable are eaten than meat” (General Manager, 5*-Hotel, Antalya).
In both destinations, awareness of the CO2 footprint of food, in particular meat, does not exist. Forecasting methods for optimizing food stocks are well advanced in Gran Canaria’s hotel chains. There is still room for improvement in Antalya. Preparation of food
None of the surveyed hotels measured energy or water consumption in the kitchen and F & B area. Even Travelife certified businesses (Travelife is a CSR certification scheme promoted by tour operators) could not provide any data. Kitchen equipment had different energy standard levels. All hotels indicated that replacements or new kitchen equipment would be energy efficient and minimum A standard. Since 2012, no electrical equipment lower than A Standard is available in Turkey due to legal regulations. Measures to save water are rare and seen as critical, since water is needed to maintain hygiene standards in the kitchen and also
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 123 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
is considered as a cooking ingredient which is not variable. However, sinks have automatic shut-off mechanisms, some can be found with automatic sensors on the taps.
The use of convenience products (semi-finished and finished products) is dependent on the hotel category (between 2% and 100%) and much rarer in Antalya than in Gran Canaria. Influencing factors for the use of convenience food are alternative costs (costs of convenience products compared with the higher personnel costs occurring with fresh cooking), non-adequate kitchen infrastructure as well as guest expectations. Preservatives, colorants and flavours are widely avoided due to increasing food intolerances and allergies of guests and other aspects of health.
”We try to cook fresh. But there are some foods, where it is financially not worthwhile. Also one must take into account the taste of the guests, for example, the guests do want French fries" (General Manager, 5*-Hotel, Gran Canaria).
"The kitchen is very small. We buy pre-prepared food and some of it such as salads we finish in our own kitchen" (General Manager, 3*Hotel, Gran Canaria).
"In Turkey people usually to not eat finished (convenience) products. The majority is prepared here (in the kitchen), also desserts and bread". (General Manager. 5*Hotel, Antalya).
"Additives are not used. Even the sauces for salads, broth are produced here. We want that our guests can eat healthy" (Executive chef, 5*hotel, Antalya).
Most hotels offer traditional, authentic dishes at the buffet and menus in different ways in order to enhance the guest experience.
Live cooking is an integral part of the buffets, which puts a focus on the freshness of the prepared dishes and is seen as a means to reduce food waste, to be able to better respond to special requests and dietary requirements of the guests and to enhance the guest experience.
"We have a new live cooking station buffet with gas. We prepare the meat and fish there, in the morning eggs, omelette and vegetables. Now we have a new device for preparing pasta live. We want to offer more live cooking, because the guests like the show, and you can thus reduce the waste” (Executive chef, 5* Hotel, Gran Canaria).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 124 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Presentation and communication of the food offer
The amount of labelling and information about food vary. Gran Canaria, member of the European Union, has to follow EU regulations to label allergens and often labels food regarding dietary information (vegetarian, vegan, etc.). Labelling in Turkey is less extensive due to fewer legal requirements. Hardly any signs of organic food or the origin of food were found. Ingredients of dishes are not communicated. Poor information on the signs and a lack of visibility of dishes that are presented in covered chafing dishes leave the guest uninformed when exploring the buffet.
Typically, meals are offered in the form of a buffet. The foods at the buffet is usually continuously refilled, but towards the end of the buffet, less or smaller and shallower containers and trays are used and the focus is set on the live cooking stations. Disposables (disposable tableware, cutlery) and single portions are rarely used except in the pool area (for security reasons). Again, a difference is seen depending on the hotel category. Drinks are available at self-service machines. Food waste management
The volume of food waste (waste from food preparation, the buffet and the guests’ plates) is high. In some 5* resorts, food waste accounts for more than 60% of the purchased food quantity. Whilst in Gran Canaria 2-10% of the food brought to the buffet has to be thrown away though still eatable, this is nearly zero in Turkey. The reason are different food safety regulations in the EU and in Turkey. Measures taken for reducing food waste are similar in both destinations. Good purchasing planning, optimal use of food in the preparation process, as well as measures to reduce the food offered towards the end of the buffet hours are implemented.
"We are very efficient. We have a good forecasting system for purchasing food, and at the end of the opening hours we strengthen the live cooking and only serve more small and single portions" (F&B Manager, 5*Hotel, Gran Canaria). Management of sustainable food operations
The analyses of food operations in holiday resorts identified a high level of interest in the topic of sustainable food among hotel representatives, but low implementation levels of strategies and operations. Some of the surveyed hotels had at least one sustainability certificate, whereby Travelife Gold was the most common standard. In Turkey, however, the national "Green star" label is more common than Travelife as this is needed for obtaining funding by the state. Also the European eco-label, TUI environmental champion, and ISO 14001 certifications were found. It can be concluded that CSR certifications are implemented mainly due to external pressure (government, tour operator).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 125 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
A written sustainability concept exists in hotels that are certified and they also communicate the concept to staff and guests by various measures. Certification systems can be a good start for implementing CSR, as hotels have to follow a certain implementation process and fulfill a criteria set. Therefore, the set up and design of such certification schemes is very important to boost sustainability.
Management staff reported that lack of awareness and knowledge as well as insufficient staff training were the main barriers to successfully implementing sustainable food operations. Social engagement
The intensity of social engagement in the community is strongly dependent on the local bonding and embedment of the owner or the management of the hotels. While social engagement in Gran Canaria is poor (with the exception of a local hotel group), there is a very strong social commitment to the community in Turkey due to the local ownership of the hotels.
"We have never been thinking about it, we don't know what the community needs. In Spain, there's a different mentality. Social activities are seen here as a matter of the state, which is different from Europe. Here, above all, companies are interested in financial success. Perhaps this is caused by a lack of information and sensitization, people do not know how they could get involved” (General Manager, 3*-Hotel, Gran Canaria).
"The local owner of the hotel is heavily connected to the municipality. […] He is repeatedly asked for support – from the mosque, the school – and we support that too” (General Manager, 5*Hotel, Antalya). Conclusion and management implications
The hotel analyses showed that the topic of sustainable food operations is of interest to the hotel management, but with few exceptions, only little attention has been given to this topic so far and sustainable food principles are hardly systematically incorporated in strategies. In addition to measures in the areas of purchasing, preparation, presentation and waste management, education and training of employees, as well as guest communication are key supporting areas in order to successfully implement sustainability strategies and operations in the kitchen and F & B area. While the full support of the hotel management is essential, tour operators have the opportunity to claim a sustainable food offer when contracting their accommodation suppliers. Modification of existing certification systems such as Travelife and introducing additional criteria for food operations could leverage their sustainability.
Thomas M. Jones (1980) argued for the first time that “CSR ought to be seen not as a set of outcomes but as a process” (Jones 1980, p. 65). Referring to this aspect in CSR definitions, we conclude that raising awareness, continuing staff and customer education, and ongoing
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 126 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
communication about sustainability issues with all stakeholders are constituting elements of CSR systems in businesses. Hence, no implementation of sustainable food operations is possible without implementing structures and processes of ongoing education and staff training and continuous communication to guests. This is particularly true for the hospitality industry facing a high staff turnover.
The implementation of sustainable food strategies and operations is best managed by the hotel and kitchen management when considering the factors below, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Steps towards the implementation of sustainable food operations
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 127 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
American Public Health Association (2007). “Toward a Healthy Sustainable Food System.” https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy- statements/policy-database/2014/07/29/12/34/toward-a-healthy-sustainable- food-system. Retrieved on: 5 Nov. 2015.
Burlingame, B., and S. Dernini (2011). Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Rome: FAO.
European Commission. Corporate Social responsibility (CSR). http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/corporate-social-responsibility/. Retrieved on: 13 June 2016
Freibauer, A., E. Mathijs, G. Brunori, Z. Damianova, E. Faroult, J. Girona i Gomis, L. O´Brien, and S. Treyer (2011). Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource- constrained world. Brussels: European Commission.
Gössling, S., C. M. Hall (2013). “Sustainable Culinary Systems. An Introduction.” In: C. M. Hall and S. Gössling (ed.): Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, Tourism and Hospitality: 3 – 44, Routledge: London.
Jones, T.M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 59-67.
Lund-Durlacher, D. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism. In: Idowu, S.O. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, vol. 3, Berlin-Heidelberg, Springer- Verlag, pp. 594
Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung, Weinbau und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz (2015). Nachhaltige Ernährung - Was unser Essen mit Klimaschutz und Welternährung zu tun hat. Mainz: MULEWF.
Öko-Institut e.V. und Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (2007). Ernährungswende - Eine Herausforderung für Politik, Unternehmen und Gesellschaft. Freiburg: Öko-Institut/ISOE.
Pack, A, B. Friedl, S. Lorek, J. Jäger, I. Omann, A. Stocker (2005). Sustainable Food Consumption: Trends and Opportunities. Interim Report. Graz.
Padilla, M., R. Capone, and G. Palma (2012): Sustainability of the food chain from field to plate: the case of the mediterranean diet. In: Burlingame, B., Dernini, S.: Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Rome
Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming (2013): The Sustain Guide to Good Food. What you can do – and ask others to do – to help make our food and farming
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 128 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
system fit for the future. London
Sustainable Development Commission (2011). Looking Back, Looking Forward - Sustainability and UK Food Policy 2000-2011. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
Tendall, D. M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q. B., Kruetli, P., Grant, M., Six, J. (2015). “Food system resilience: Defining the concept”. Global Food Security, 6: 17 – 23.
The Sustainable Restaurant Association (2015). “14 Key Areas of Sustainability“. http://www.thesra.org/our-sustainability-framework/ - retrieved on: 20 Nov. 2015. von Koerber, K. (2010). “Fünf Dimensionen der Nachhaltigen Ernährung und weiterentwickelte Grundsätze – Ein Update.“ Ernährung im Fokus, 10: 260-266.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 129 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Spirituality and corporate social responsibility in tourism: a view from lesser developed countries
Alexandra Law* & Putu Indah Rahmawati^ & Terry De Lacy°
*Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, [email protected]
^Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, [email protected]
°Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, [email protected]
Key words: Spirituality; Corporate Social Responsibility; Tourism Businesses, Tourism Destinations; Developing Countries
Introduction
This ongoing study investigates the role of spirituality for corporate social responsibility (CSR) by tourism businesses in lesser developed countries and the implications this has at the destination level. While tourism destinations in industrialised countries often have fairly good data on motivations and drivers of CSR in their respective locations, this is generally not the case for developing countries, where data may be non-existent, unreliable and/or difficult to obtain. This means that destinations in developing countries rely on a body of literature on CSR that has been mostly Western-centric with dominant theories focussing for example on Corporate Social Performance, Shareholder Value Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Citizenship (Crane, McWilliams, Matten, Moon, & Siegel, 2008). However, lesser developed countries may have a very different rationale for focussing on CSR and Visser (2008, p. 474), for example, highlights that:
• Developing countries represent the most rapidly expanding economies, and hence the most lucrative growth markets for business;
• Developing countries are where the social and environmental crises are usually most acutely felt in the world;
• Developing countries are where globalisation, economic growth, investment, and business activity are likely to have the most dramatic social and environmental impacts (both positive and negative);
• Developing countries present a distinctive set of CSR agenda challenges, which are collectively quite different to those faced in the developed world.
He also argues, “There is ample evidence that CSR in developing countries draws strongly on
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 130 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
deep-rooted indigenous cultural traditions of philanthropy, business ethics, and community embeddedness” (p. 481). However, this should not be interpreted as a clear dichotomy between developed and developing countries. Some developing countries of course share the ‘industrialised’ rationale for CSR, while in the developed world motivations such as altruism, religion and spirituality may also be important drivers (Pruzan, 2008), particulaly in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Finally, it is important to note the globalised nature of tourism with many tourism businesses in the lesser developed world owned by foreign companies or at least managed by foreigners.
The distinction between developed and developing countries is therefore made here in the context of managing CSR at the destination level. In some developing countries, spirituality and culture play a significant role in the adoption of CSR, yet there are fewer resources and less capacity to harness this potential at the destination level. For example, Hindu philosophy appears to have a very strong influence on CSR in India, where Sharma, Agarwal and Ketola (2009) found a 100 percent regulatory CSR compliance by companies listed on the countries recognised stock exchanges. Moral and altruistic motivations were also the key drivers for CSR award winners from the Stock Exchange of Thailand (Virakul, Koonmee, & McLean, 2009).
Finally, Kuada and Hinson (2009) found that local firms in Ghana were motivated by moral and ethical factors, while their foreign counterparts were mainly driven by legal obligations. This evidence of motivational differences highlights the difficulty for destinations in the developing world to track and coordinate their potentially unique CSR activities - especially since spirituality-inspired CSR is often intended to be ‘unconditional giving’ and therefore intentionally not reported (e.g. Sharma et al, 2009). Yet despite evidence of motivational differences and the important role of CSR in developing countries, the body of literature on CSR is heavily skewed towards the Western context and our understanding of spirituality and CSR in tourism remains in its infancy. Weaver and Jin (2016) recently paved the way by investigating the role of compassion as a motivator for sustainable tourism but there remains a significant gap in the literature – not only on understanding the adoption of spirituality-inspired CSR in tourism, but also on the implications this has at the destination level. Aim
The aim of this ongoing study is to develop a framework and research agenda to guide spirituality-inspired CSR by tourism businesses in developing countries for a maximised positive social and environmental impact at the destination level.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 131 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Method
This research is being conducted in the case study destination of Bali, Indonesia, where cultural identity is driven by the Hindu-based Tri Hita Karana philosophy. Translated as the “three causes of well-being” it centres on the belief that prosperity will only be achieved through a harmonious relationship between human beings and the natural environment; the relationships among human beings themselves; and the relationship between mankind and God. Bali’s Tri Hita Karana Hindu culture is unique in the world and its location in the geographical heart of the largest Muslim country on earth (by population) further strengthens its identity. Tri Hita Karana therefore also shapes Balinese business practices. For example, at the destination level, a Tri Hita Karana-inspired approach was used as the baseline of the 2050 Green Growth Roadmap for Bali Sustainable Tourism Development (De Lacy, Jiang, Lipman, & Vorster, 2014; Law, De Lacy, Lipman, & Jiang, 2016; Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, 2013). There is also evidence to suggest that Tri Hita Karana is indeed being used as a core philosophy for the development of CSR activities across Bali (Anom, 2011; Pertiwi & Ludigdo, 2013).
The first phase of the research was conducted from August to October 2014 and involved semi-structured interviews with tourism stakeholders such as tourism businesses, government officials, community leaders and non-governmental organisations in Bali. The data was analysed in a qualitative approach using the software NVIVO10. In the second phase of the research, expected to commence in June 2016, focus groups will be conducted with experts from tourism industry, government, academia as well as leaders of the Tri Hita Karana Organisation and leaders of the CSR Bali Forum. The data will again be analysed in NVIVO 10. Preliminary Results
The preliminary results of this study indicate that, as anticipated, motivations for the adoption of CSR strategies by tourism businesses in Bali appear to be different from those in many developed countries. In the UK, for example, motivating reasons include corporate reputation, stakeholder pressure, economic performance, genuine concern and social/cultural interests (Samuel & Ionna, 2007). However, the preliminary results from this study indicate that spiritual faith is indeed an essential driver for CSR in Bali. As two participants commented:
“I am not concerned about legal obligation before implementing CSR. I do my best for my people (family and employees) and nature. You may know that ‘what we planted is what we reap’. That is my motivation in life and businesses. “Not too much talking, like a politician. I do not need any publicity. I am doing good to the universe and the universe will return to me”.
“We do CSR not because of legal obligations, but more because of our
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 132 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
belief. If we do good, nature will return to us. Similarly, if we treat the community and employees with respect, then we as hotel management will benefit from their support. The hotel cannot operate well without community support”.
These results from Bali have important implications at the tourism destination level. With motivations for CSR strongly driven by spirituality, the majority of respondents do not advertise or report their CSR practices. This makes it difficult to identify the cumulative impact of CSR in the destination and how it may be managed or improved. As one participant from the government pointed out:
“The current problem is the businesses implementing CSR initiatives without reporting their program to the government. We almost never know what they do, how much they give and to whom. It will good for us to know this so that the funding does not overlap in certain communities in Bali”.
Therefore, the second phase of this study will explore how spirituality-inspired CSR may be better coordinated at the destination level.
Conclusion (Expected Outcomes)
The preliminary results of this research highlight the important role spirituality plays as a driver for CSR in Bali, while the literature review has pointed to an important gap in regards to spirituality and CSR in tourism - in particular in lesser developed countries. Building on the findings of the first phase of the research, the second phase is expected to lead to the identification of challenges and opportunities for harnessing spirituality-inspired CSR and an outline of what tourism stakeholders view as the best approach for coordinating this at the destination level.
In regards to the practical outcomes, this research provides Bali with the opportunity to facilitate CSR collaboration between tourism industry, government, the Tri Hita Karana Organisation and the CSR Forum Bali, to maximise the benefit of spirituality-inspired CSR at the destination level. This research for aligning CSR with the Tri Hita Karana belief may lead to better coordination of CSR activities and greater positive impact for Balinese communities. Importantly the research will provide a framework useful for other destinations in developing countries that have a strong spiritual philosophy.
Limitations
While the study aims to develop a framework that is relevant for other destinations, the data is collected and analysed in the form of a qualitative case study. This approach has limitations in regards to the overall generalisability, depending on the outcomes of the second phase of the research.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 133 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Anom, I. G. N. (2011). Pengembangan tanggung jawab sosial perseroan (corporate social responsibility): Dikaitkan dengan konsep Tri Hita Karana (studi di propinsi Bali). Thesis. Denpasar, Bali: Udayana University.
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
De Lacy, T., Jiang, M., Lipman, G., & Vorster, S. (Eds.). (2014). Green growth and travelism: Concept, policy and practice for sustainable tourism. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kuada, J., & Hinson, R. E. (2012). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices of foreign and local companies in Ghana. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(4), 521-536. doi: 10.1002/tie.21481
Law, A., De Lacy, T., Lipman, G., & Jiang, M. (2016). Transitioning to a green economy: the case of tourism in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, Part B, 295- 305. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.070
Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy (2013). Green growth 2050 roadmap for Bali sustainable tourism development. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, Republic of Indonesia.
Pertiwi, I. D. A. E., & Ludigdo, U. (2013). Corporate social responsibility implementation based on Tri Hita Karana culture. Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma, 4 (3), 330-507. Retrieved from http://www.jamal.ub.ac.id/index.php/jamal/article/view/267/254 [last accessed 15/04/2016].
Pruzan, P. (2008). Spirituality as a firm basis for corporate social responsibility In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibilty (pp. 552-559). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Samuel, O. I., & Ioanna, P. (2007). Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK companies. Corporate Governance, 7(2), 136-147. doi: 10.1108/14720700710739787
Sharma, M. K., Agarwal, P., & Ketola, T. (2009). Hindu philosophy: Bridging corporate governance and CSR. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20(3), 299-310. doi:10.1108/14777830910950694
Virakul, B., Koonmee, K., & McLean, G. N. (2009). CSR activities in award‐winning Thai companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(2), 178-199. doi:10.1108/17471110910964478
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 134 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Visser, W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 473-499). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, D. B., & Jin, X. (2016). Compassion as a neglected motivator for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1101130
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 135 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
eTraining for Sustainable Tourism: Investing in Skills as Part of Corporate Responsibility and CSV Initiatives
Ayako Ezaki
TrainingAid, Germany, [email protected]
*Acknowledgement: In addition to those who provided comments anonymously, the following tourism professionals have contributed to this paper and the research project by providing their insights into training and skills development opportunities in the tourism industry: Kelly Galaski, Program & Operations Manager, Americas & Europe, Planeterra Foundation / G Adventures; Vera Holwerda-Hirth, Sales Manager at Merapi Tour & Travel; Ted Martens, Vice President, Marketing & Sustainability, Natural Habitat Adventures; Antje Martins, Customer Service & Training Manager, Earth Check; and Rod Walters, Partner, Knowledge Travel Partners.
Key words: e-learning, online learning, skills development, professional development, tourism skills, tourism industry professionals
Introduction: Skills for Sustainable Tourism, eTraining Opportunities
This paper outlines and analyses the current state of “eTraining" opportunities (e.g. distance learning programs, online courses, live seminars) supporting skills development for tourism professionals, with a particular focus on subject areas relevant to tourism industry organizations engaged in sustainable tourism and sustainability practices. Why skills matter for sustainable tourism
The topic of professional skills development is not only relevant to the discussion of sustainable tourism, but also a critical part of sustained business success. Rather than thinking about skills development as confined to HR departments or mandatory employee training programs, tourism organizations can focus on investing in employees’ professional growth as a key part of their CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) efforts, or perhaps more appropriately, their CSV (Creating Shared Value) initiatives.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 136 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
CSV (Creating Shared Value)
The concept of CSV was first introduced by Professor Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer in the article “Creating Shared Value” published by Harvard Business Review. The CSV framework focuses on “generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges” and on re-connecting “company success with social progress” (Porter and Kramer, 2011). Rather than focusing on corporate giving or philanthropy, or even sustainability, as a separate area of corporate responsibilities, CSV calls on corporations to focus on social impact at the core of their business strategy.
Investing in employees’ skills development needs by providing the necessary time, resources and support is an important way for the employer to demonstrate that employees’ contributions to the company are valued, whether it’s about the performance of job-specific tasks, or about the implementation of company-wide goals such as sustainability initiatives.
When it comes to corporate responsibility efforts, employee engagement and company- wide goals go hand in hand, as it is "nearly impossible to tackle your company’s big corporate responsibility challenges without also tackling employee engagement, which is both a means to drive your CR efforts and the end result" (PwC, 2014). Improving employee engagement, increasing productivity
Providing skills building and professional development opportunities through courses, workshops and mentorships can help improve employee engagement and enhance employee morale. This, in turn, can help improve employee retention and offer a critical advantage, as “businesses with highly engaged employees see higher customer satisfaction, have lower turnover rates, and outperform in terms of CR impact and ROI” (PwC, 2014).
Employee engagement, furthermore, helps businesses build a long-term competitive advantage and contributes to the business’ overall performance goals, as a more engaged and committed team of employees can not only “enhance bottom-line profit” but also “enable organizational agility and improved efficiency in driving change initiatives” (Robertson-Smith and Markwick, 2009).
Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, has been famously quoted as saying, “Train people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they do not want to. If you look after your staff, they will look after your customers. It is that simple” (Branson, 2014). A key part of looking after your employees - and by extension looking after the needs of your customers, which helps strengthen your business performance and customer loyalty - should be empowering them through opportunities for skills development and professional growth.
This is a "win-win” for employers and employees, as having a knowledgeable, creative and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 137 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
engaged team of employees is a key ingredient of sustained business success.
Contributing to a stronger, more competitive tourism industry
In addition to supporting training and professional development needs internally, tourism industry employers play a critical role in, and have important responsibilities for investing in skills development opportunities for current and future tourism professionals, supporting the sustainable development of the tourism industry as a whole.
Skills matter for the sustainable development of tourism because the individuals who work in tourism, and the skills they bring to the industry, are sources of innovation. Which the industry needs in order to stay competitive, as emphasized in this quote: “People are a unique source of value and competitive advantage, driving innovation, delivering quality tourism services and supporting sustainable tourism development” (Stacey, 2015). Why eTraining? Online learning tools and their potentials
There is a wide range of tools available nowadays to develop and design online learning experiences – from eLearning software designed for educators, to online communities of individuals offering courses and tutorials, to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
What are MOOCs?
MOOCs (massive open online courses) may be defined as “courses designed for large numbers of participants that can be accessed by anyone anywhere as long as they have an internet connection, are open to everyone without entry qualifications, and offer a full/complete course experience online for free” (OpenupEd, 2015).
Given the accessibility and flexibility offered by some of these online tools, professional training programs can also benefit from implementing online solutions and alternatives. While online programs would not replace or offer the same benefits of in-person training, when appropriately implemented, an “eTraining” approach can be an effective way of facilitating and strengthening knowledge sharing and skills development. Many organizations, both in tourism and in other professional fields, are already utilizing online solutions in various ways.
Through discussions on current trends and issues related to eTraining, this paper presents the benefits of online learning tools in supporting relevant skills development opportunities for tourism professionals, and explores how eTraining can be used by tourism organizations as a useful solution for talent development and capacity building.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 138 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Research on “Tourism Skills+Jobs"
TrainingAid conducted an online survey of tourism industry stakeholders on the topic of skills development for industry professionals. The main objectives of the survey were:
• To understand tourism industry stakeholders’ learning and professional development needs.
• To gain insights into desired and required skills, as well as perceived skill gaps in the tourism industry.
• To learn about examples of training and skills development opportunities currently available for tourism professionals.
• To identify key challenges and needs for improving training programs and skills development opportunities.
Background information and survey methods
The survey invitation was sent to 962 tourism industry contacts through TrainingAid’s contact database. Those who received the email invitation to participate in the survey satisfied at least one of the following conditions:
• Have participated in at least one of the TrainingAid online courses in the last year.
• Have registered for and/or watched at least one of the TrainingAid Live Sessions within the last 6 months.
• Are current subscribers of a TrainingAid newsletter and/or email updates related to online courses.
These conditions were identified as a way to filter those who are likely to have interests or needs in areas related to professional training and skills development, and thus be able to identify with the research objectives and to offer relevant insights.
The survey link and additional information on the research project was also published on the TrainingAid blog (TrainingAid, 2016), which was also shared through social media channels.
In addition to the online survey, follow-up interviews with 10 of the survey participants were conducted via Skype call or email. The interviewees were selected from those who indicated their willingness to take part in a follow-up email to share additional insights and opinions. The comments and feedback gathered through these interviews are reflected in the recommendations and conclusion (See Sections IV and V).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 139 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Survey participant numbers and industry sectors
One hundred and five (105) responses were collected during the survey period (April 25 - May 25, 2016), submitted by survey participants from 52 countries. A majority of survey participants (45%) came from Europe and Central Asia, followed by the Americas (24%) and Asia-Pacific (17%). The following chart shows the geographic spread of survey participants by region.
Figure 1: Regions of the world represented by survey participants. Countries in Western, Easter, Central and Southern Africa.
All survey participants were asked to identify one (1) industry sector that they are most closely affiliated with.
The largest numbers of survey participants are affiliated with the private sector, representing or working for tour operators and travel agencies (35.8% of all participants). The academic and non-profit sectors are the second most represented among this group, followed by accommodations, destinations, and government organizations.
The following chart shows detailed breakdown of industry sectors selected by survey participants.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 140 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Chart 2: Sectors of the tourism industry represented by survey participants
Employer- and employee-perspectives on tourism training opportunities
The online survey asked the participants to select one of the following two categories, each of which was associated with a specific set of questions.
Survey question for all participants (current status)
Which of the following best describes your current status?
1. Employer, business owner/manager, team leader - offering or want to offer training opportunities for your staff or team members.
2. Employee, independent professional, career seeker - want to access training opportunities for yourself
Of the total responses collected (105), 46 survey participants selected “Employer, business owner/manager, team leader”, and 60 “Employee, independent professional, career seeker”. The distinction between these two categories is important in properly interpreting the context of survey responses.
One of the key objectives of the survey was to identify the perceived skill gaps in the tourism industry. To achieve this, the survey sought to gather input from both the sides of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 141 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the tourism industry labour and skills: employers seeking talent and individuals seeking employment.
• The questions for employers focus on their needs for employee training, what they consider to be challenges or obstacles to offering effective employee training and skills development opportunities, and the perceived skill gaps in the tourism industry from the perspectives of employers.
• The questions for employees focus on the skills and capacity building needs of those who are working in or seeking to work in the tourism industry, training opportunities they would like to access, and the perceived skill gaps from the perspectives of tourism industry employees.
The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) in its 2015 report discusses “talent gaps and deficiencies” in the industry that are and expected to lead to negative consequences such as "inferior customer service and quality standards” when positions are filled by under- qualified and under-experienced staff due to skills gaps, and negative impacts on various business factors including “costs, bottom-line profitability, competitiveness, … brand, investment and ultimately future growth” (WTTC, 2015).
The TrainingAid survey was designed to capture opinions and insights from both the employer and employee perspectives, with the aim of learning about and better understanding current issues, key challenges and future opportunities in the areas of skills building, training and talent development in travel and tourism.
Survey results and key takeaways
1. Many tourism businesses and organizations provide their employees with training and skills development opportunities.
More than 65% of those in the “Employer” category answered “Yes” to the question, "Other than job-specific training (e.g. compliance training as part of the required employee orientation), does your company currently offer opportunities for your staff members to gain new skills?”.
2. In-person workshops and classroom training events are the most common types of skills development opportunities that tourism organizations are offering their employees.
Those who said “Yes” to the above question were then asked to select the specific types of training and skills development programs they have in place. The most common answers were “Opportunities to earn professional certificates or qualifications”, “Custom in-person training courses and workshops”, and “Access to external in-person training courses and workshops”.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 142 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Skills development opportunities offered by tourism organizations
Results of the survey question (“Employer” category) on the types of training and skills development programs that tourism organizations currently have in place:
• Opportunities to earn professional certificates or qualifications. – 17
• Custom in-person training courses and workshops. – 16
• Access to external in-person training courses and workshops. – 16
• Access to external online courses. – 13
• Custom online training and e-learning courses. – 8
Regarding the option “Opportunities to earn professional certificates or qualifications”, many survey responders explained that they offer such opportunities by offering their employees and team members the chance to attend professional conferences and other educational events.
3. Both tourism employers and employees view cost and time as the main challenges to implementing skills development opportunities.
In response to questions about the main challenges to implementing and investing in professional training, perhaps expectedly, the most frequently selected answers in both the employers and employees categories were “cost” and “time”.
Obstacles to skills development: the employer perspective
Results of the survey question (“Employer” category) on the main challenges to implementing training and skills development programs:
• Cost. – 28
• Company’s time (time needed to plan and manage such programs). – 24
• Employees’ time (time invested in training, away from their job requirements). – 22
• Lack of interest by employees. – 7
• Lack of tangible benefits. – 6
• Lack of access to relevant training materials. – 6
• Lack of interest by company leadership. – 4
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 143 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Obstacles to skills development: the employee perspective
Results of the survey question (“Employee” category) on the main challenges to investing in professional training and skills development:
• Cost. – 42
• Lack of time. – 28
• Not finding training opportunities in the city or country you live in. – 24
• Not finding training opportunities in the topic areas you’re interested in. – 21
• Lack of clarity in terms of the benefits of training and skills development. – 14
• Not finding the type of programs you want to participate in. – 10
4. Many tourism industry employers identify key CSV benefits of employee training and skills development (but do not necessary recognize their relevance to CSR).
In response to the question, “What do you think are the most important ways your company can benefit from offering skills development opportunities to staff members?”, the answer most frequently selected was “Improved employee satisfaction and engagement”, followed by "Gaining competitive edge through skilled employees” and “Increased productivity”.
On the other hand, the answer option “Supporting CSR goals” was not selected by many respondents, showing that there is a strong level of awareness that employee engagement is a critical part of expected outcomes of training and skills development efforts, but that the relationship between such efforts and CSR / CSV goals is not widely recognized.
Tourism organizations’ expectations on the ROI of skills development
Results of the survey question (“Employer” category) on the most important benefits of offering skills development opportunities to staff members:
• Improved employee satisfaction and engagement. – 37
• Gaining competitive edge through skilled employees. – 23
• Increased productivity. – 22
• Increased innovation. – 17
• Long-term cost saving through increased efficiency. – 14
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 144 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
• Supporting CSR (corporate social responsibility) goals. – 13
• Other. – 4
5. Online learning is important to tourism professionals, perhaps more than their employers think.
A large number of those who selected the “Employee” category noted that “Taking online training courses and e-learning programs” is among the most important ways for them to acquire new skills, followed by “On-the-job learning” and “Attending training workshops/seminars or other in-person programs”.
How do tourism professionals acquire new skills?
Results of the survey question (“Employee” category) on what respondents consider “the most important ways acquire new skills”:
• Taking online training courses and e-learning programs. – 41
• On-the-job learning. – 37
• Attending training workshops/seminars or other in-person programs. – 35
• Mentorship or coaching by expert(s) in your field. – 24
• Employee training program offered by your company or organization. – 11
• Internship or apprenticeship experiences. – 10
Other. – 2
6. Many tourism professionals have taken MOOCs on topics that are directly and indirectly related to tourism.
More than half (53.3%) the respondents in the “Employee” category answered “Yes” to the question, “Have you participated in any online training course or e-learning program?”, and provided information on the online learning experience they’ve had. Twelve respondents (40% of those who answered “Yes” to the above question) mentioned MOOCs, some stating that they’ve taken a particular MOOC, and others noting that they’ve taken many MOOCs from multiple providers.
Notably, these survey respondents’ experiences with MOOCs are not limited to courses on topics that are directly related to tourism (e.g. hospitality management, tourism marketing), but also those whose primary focus is not tourism, including topics such as innovative business strategies, social entrepreneurship, human rights and international development.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 145 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
7. Many tourism professionals have also participated in other types of e-learning programs on various topics.
In addition to MOOCs, various other types of online courses were mentioned, including webinars, custom online courses for professionals and academic and lifelong learning programs. The following are examples of these online courses and programs.
Academic programs and online lifelong learning opportunities for tourism professionals:
• Degree programs that are fully or partially available online.
• Online certificate programs by universities and educational institutions.
Tourism industry-related professional certificate programs:
• Certificate programs for professional qualifications, e.g. meeting and event planners.
• Professional certificate programs for industry segments, e.g. medical tourism.
Other tourism position- or sector-specific programs:
• Online destination specialist programs.
• Course on booking systems and other travel technologies.
8. Many tourism employers see skill gaps in sustainability-related areas for both staff and management positions.
In response to the survey question regarding perceived skill gaps in the tourism industry, the respondents in the “Employer” category, unsurprisingly, provided a diverse range of answers, reflecting the various types of destinations, organizations and sectors represented by the group.
There were, however, some common themes (answers mentioned multiple times), including sustainability-related skills. Of the total of 40 responses to this question, 9 (23%) mentioned a skill area related to sustainability practices (e.g. “sustainability skills”, “sustainable tourism practices”, “expertise in responsible tourism solutions”) as a key area of skill gaps in the tourism industry. Many also commented that these skill gaps they see need to be recognized not just for staff positions (e.g. front desk managers, tour guides) but also at the management level.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 146 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Perceived skill gaps in the tourism industry
Some of the most frequently mentioned answers to the question (“Employer” category) on key skill gaps in the tourism industry:
• Sustainability practices, expertise in responsible tourism. – 9
• Leadership and management skills (people management, team building). – 9
• Digital marketing (social media, search marketing, web analytics). – 6
• Guiding (professional guiding skills, interpretation skills). – 5
• Language skills. – 5
• Product design and development skills. – 4
• Business development and growth (financial management, business strategy). – 3
• Customer service and customer relations. – 3
9. There seems to be an "awareness gap" in sustainability related skills between employers and employees / job seekers.
Based on the answers to the survey question (“Employee” category), "What skills do you think are most important for the job you currently have (or the position you want to have)?” many tourism professionals, employees and career seekers don’t place as much emphasis on sustainability-related skills as the “Employer” group. Technical skills and position-specific skills are identified by the largest numbers of respondents as most important.
Most valued skills for jobs in the tourism industry
Some of the most frequently mentioned answers to the question (“Employee” category) on the most important skills for their jobs:
• Customer service, customer engagement skills. – 11
• Digital marketing skills (content creation, social media, analytics). – 8
• IT and technical skills (web design & development, coding, data management). – 6
• Accounting, financial management skills. – 5
• Professional networking skills. – 4
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 147 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
• Strategic planning, business development skills. – 4
• Management and leadership skills. – 3
• Language skills. – 3
Many respondents also mentioned sector- and position-specific knowledge and skills as most important to their jobs, such as: the principles and practical application of ecotourism; best practices in heritage interpretation; current trends in sharing economy; climate change policies and renewable energy practices.
10. Soft skills matter for tourism industry employers and employees.
Both employers and employees emphasized the importance of “soft skills”, or personal attributes that enable someone to interact effectively and harmoniously with other people, such as critical thinking, teamwork and collaboration, self- motivation and curiosity to learn.
Below are some comments by respondents in the “Employers” category about key transferrable skills that are important for tourism professionals:
• Employees need to be able to “find current and quality information to serve business needs”.
• It’s not only important to have well-rounded knowledge, but one must be able to turn information and knowledge into practical actions.
11. Many tourism professionals value people skills and recognize them as critical to their job performance.
A large number of survey respondents, particularly those in the “Employee” category, identified various “people skills” including interpersonal communication, cross-cultural understanding and relationship building as among the most important skills for their current (or desired future) jobs. For example, one respondent in the “Employee” category mentioned a “passion for people” as being the most important professional trait to have.
Tourism, at its core, is all about people: the individuals who make up various communities and organizations creating, managing, promoting, sharing and participating in travel experiences. It’s no surprise, therefore, that many tourism industry professionals consider “people skills” to be a key to their success.
The emphasis on soft skills and people skills is also demonstrated by the survey responses in the “Employer” category about the priorities in hiring and recruitment
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 148 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
practices. Close to two-thirds of the respondents said that personal and cultural alignment is a more important factor than specific skill sets when seeking and evaluating job candidates.
Key factors in tourism talent search
Results of the survey question (“Employer” category) on the recruitment approaches of tourism industry organization:
• You have some skills requirements, but focus more on finding the right match in terms of company culture and values. - 65.2%
• You seek out candidates who have skills that are specified in job descriptions. - 26.1%
• Rather than trying to fit candidates into certain positions, you create positions based on people’s skills and talent. - 8.7% Recommendations
Tourism businesses and industry organizations can benefit from implementing online solutions to support and complement their internal skills development needs and to increase the impact of their CSR and CSV efforts. There are a wide range of eTraining approaches available, each with different sets of strengths and weaknesses. It is important, therefore, to look at existing examples, learn from the lessons of those that have implemented successful approaches, and incorporate lessons learned into effective and long-term training strategies.
1. Take advantage of MOOCs as lifelong learning and corporate learning programs.
Tourism industry organizations may adopt the lifelong learning approach to support their employee training programs. One prominent example of online learning opportunities available for lifelong learners are MOOCs. As shown by the TrainingAid survey results, many tourism professionals are interested in and/or have participated in MOOCs. The fact that MOOCs are already widely recognized by tourism professionals, combined with the open and (usually) free nature of MOOCs may make these courses attractive options for tourism industry organizations.
In addition to individuals accessing free online courses on topics that are relevant to them, MOOCs can be, and in some cases are already starting to be used as part of corporate learning and workplace training programs. Some corporations, notably large ones, develop their own MOOC programs that are either used only internally or also made available for external users (e.g. as a way to engage potential hires). Others choose to utilize existing MOOC platforms by curating relevant courses for their team members to participate in.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 149 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
An example of the latter approach in the tourism industry is Much Better Adventures, a UK- based company offering a booking platform for active holidays, which is mentioned in a TechRepublic article about the use of MOOCs for corporate training. The article describes how the team members took MOOCs on topics related sustainability: "On Friday afternoons, the team at Much Better Adventures … stops what they're doing and spends some time learning about sustainability via massively open online courses (MOOCs) on Coursera and Future Learn” (Carson, 2014).
In this particular example, Much Better Adventures utilized existing MOOCs to address a specific area of knowledge gap and to address a business goal of implementing sustainability practices as part of the core business development model. As a result, the information, knowledge and skills gained through sustainability MOOCs were put into practical use, including the creation of a foundation to support grassroots conservation and sustainable development projects in adventure tourism destinations.
Jeanne Meister, co-author of The 2020 Workplace, explains that in addition to offering free online courses, MOOCs also provide "a system of testing, grading, peer-to-peer learning and certificates for completion that opens up higher education to the masses,” and that they can be an effective (and cost-effective) way to implement "an innovative online learning design for employees” where the learners have more control over when and how they learn (Meister, 2015).
An important consideration, however, is whether the learning experience is appropriate for the specific context of learning: who needs to learn what and why. For example, a MOOC on tourism marketing that is offered by a university and has academically-focused approaches and requirements (e.g. required readings, paper assignments, exams) will not be a suitable option for a busy tourism industry professional who needs to acquire practical marketing skills to improve job performance.
2. Social learning: Make people at the centre of training goals and learning experiences.
Building on the above point about the importance of the context of learning, any eTraining program, whether adopting MOOCs for corporate learning or creating own in-house custom online courses, must strive to create a learning experience that is relevant to the individuals participating in the program and their needs and expectations.
For example, having a beautifully designed learning platform with advanced features will not help unless the learners are motivated to actively participate in the learning experience. In any tourism organization, large or small, team dynamics and the relationships the team members build with each other are a key factor in forming and defining the organizational culture. Learning and skills building opportunities must also be designed to be in line with the context of the organizational culture.
Making learning social is a key to successfully implementing an eTraining program. “Social” may mean, depending on the organization and the specific learning goals for its team, utilizing social media tools, incorporating game-based learning techniques, or blending
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 150 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
online and in-person learning activities. The key is to make the learners at the centre of the learning experience and to make the eTraining program engaging and meaningful in the context of who needs and wants to learn what and - importantly - why.
For example, is your team engaged in online learning in order to accomplish a specific goal that the business has for its sustainability initiative? Then, as in the previously mentioned example of Much Better Adventures, turning the online learning experience more social by making it a team activity with a shared goal can be an effective approach.
The importance of social learning is emphasized by Alan Todd and Dr. George Siemens in their article, published on WIRED, about where MOOCs fall short in catering to the needs of businesses that require eTraining programs designed “to foster not only the content knowledge of employees, but also the social skills they require to succeed”. The authors emphasize that “[i]t is increasingly important to engage learners socially, because they stand to learn as much from each other as from formal instruction.” The key to social learning is to create “a place where colleagues can connect, form networks, and share ideas” (Tood and George, 2015).
3. Make sustainability skills a priority.
Although the awareness of sustainable tourism is increasing across the industry, the reality of sustainability training in tourism today is that there is still a skill gap as identified by many of the TrainingAid survey participants in the “Employer” category, and there is also a lack of awareness as shown in the answers by many of the “Employee” category survey respondents.
At the organizational level, the efforts to increase skills related to sustainability and sustainable tourism practices are often focused around a particular department or group within a company, for example, offering sustainability training to those who have positions that are specifically related to the company’s sustainability practices.
While having individuals or teams who are empowered to lead in areas related to sustainability is a great approach for driving sustainability awareness and practice within an organization, for a more lasting impact, sustainability should be part of the organization- wide training and skills development goals, and not a separate program only for the “sustainability people”.
Making sustainability a priority in organization-wide skills development efforts will not only support the success of tourism businesses’ CSR and CSV initiatives, but also help create an environment where employees are more engaged and motivated, as "[p]eople want to work for a successful, high-performing organization on projects that help them grow and in ways that connect them to something larger than themselves" (PWC, 2014).
At the individual level, many tourism professionals also seem to view sustainability as something reserved for the “sustainability people”. To raise awareness of the need and relevance of sustainability-related skills, one of the key solutions is to start early. And here,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 151 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
universities and educational institutions have a critical role to play: incorporating sustainability-related themes and topics into hospitality training course, university courses and apprentice programs - not as an “add-on”, but as part of the core curriculum with clear objectives to equip future tourism industry professionals with a solid understanding of sustainability issues and the skills they need to implement sustainable tourism practices in all facets of the industry.
At the industry level, an important solution for driving positive change in terms of both awareness and practice of sustainable tourism is for those organizations that are actively engaged in sustainability to show initiative in highlighting the need and relevance of sustainability skills in practice, so that their own employees may be inspired to be more proactively engaged, and that other organizations in the industry may start to see sustainability as a business priority as well.
4. Not just technical skills: don’t forget soft skills.
As shown by many of the comments by the survey respondents (in both the “Employees" and “Employer" categories), soft skills such as effective interpersonal communications, work ethics, teamwork and collaboration are a critical part of tourism industry job performance.
Some of these positive attributes may be “natural” to people and difficult to instil if someone does not possess such qualities. It is, however, important for companies to invest in skills training that addresses soft skills, as well as “hard skills” that are specifically related to employees’ positions and tasks. In an article published by Business News Daily, Paul Sebastien, vice president and general manager of Udemy for Business, highlights the benefits of incorporating soft skills in employee training, “The most successful teams consist of members who have skillsets that complement one another and play off of team members' strengths. When employers invest in training in hard and soft skills, it helps employees feel valued as they work toward career development goals” (Fallon, 2015).
The focus on soft skills is in line with the current development and shift in the tourism industry, as today’s younger generations, who will be tomorrow’s tourism industry leaders, come with new and different sets of expectations about their professional careers and skills development opportunities. On this point, the WTTC report on tourism jobs and talent needs notes that “[y]oung employees are more likely to engage with training which meets their personal as well as company needs and aspirations. So for young people, purely functional, task-related training is valued less than more generic skills development” (WTTC, 2015).
5. Go beyond required training: Help employees identify opportunities for continuous learning and professional development.
Whether focusing on job-specific skill sets or broader soft skills, professional growth and skills development do not always need to come in the form of formal employee training. In addition to developing eTraining and other skills building programs, tourism industry organizations can create effective “learning by doing” opportunities to make learning more
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 152 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
natural and enjoyable for employees.
Letting employees “learn by doing” may mean providing opportunities and the environment internally for practicing certain skills - for example, getting someone to lead a discussion at a team meeting or a company event (practicing effective presentation, communication and facilitation skills), or involving staff members from different department in designing a sustainability program for the company (practicing team work, collaboration and project management skills).
“Learning by doing” can also happen through external opportunities such as joining local and international industry events and projects, and participating in or even leading partnership initiatives or campaigns working in collaboration with other organizations.
While offering flexible opportunities and allowing employees to seek and identify learning needs are a great approach especially when it comes to the “learning by doing” way of skills development. At the same time, however, it is important for the employee to help with the process of identify skills development needs and opportunities.
For many tourism professionals, the reality of their work is that they are mostly busy with the job-specific tasks and their day-to-day obligations. It can therefore be difficult to proactively seek continuous learning opportunities, let alone know what skills would be valuable to their current job roles and to their future career goals.
In a follow-up interview, Kelly Galaski, Program & Operations Manager, Americas & Europe at Planeterra Foundation / G Adventures, noted: “Personally I have had a lot of professional development opportunities in the form of projects I’ve been given and conferences I’ve been able to attend.” Since project management is a critical aspect of her job, she has identified the benefits of further strengthening skills in project management, and was supported by the company to participate in a week-long course on the topic. Based on her own experience, Ms Galaski recommends the following as a way for tourism employers to better support skills development needs of industry professionals: “1. The employee being able to identify what kind of skill development they need, and then searching for a program or 2. Companies helping employees identify what skills need developing and encouraging them to seek out such a training program.”
Implementing these solutions require that the employer understands what’s important for the employees and how they’d like to access learning and training opportunities, which comes down to the good business and team management practice of valuing each employee’s contributions to the company.
6. Think outside of the tourism box: Seek the best opportunities for your team’s specific needs and goals, within and outside of travel and tourism.
There are various task- and job-oriented skill sets in the tourism industry that are specific to
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 153 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the positions and sectors that individual employees are in. But many important soft and hard skills that tourism industry professionals need in order to succeed in their jobs are not specific to the tourism industry; rather they are broad and transferrable skills and competencies.
It is important for tourism organizations, therefore, to consider skills development opportunities outside of the tourism industry, given that the best opportunities for your needs may be available in other industries. Looking at skills needs and training opportunities only within the tourism context may lead to narrowing the options and missing out on the opportunities best suited to address your company’s and team members’ needs.
Providing comments about his team members’ skills development needs and the best opportunities to address those needs, Ted Martens, Vice President, Marketing & Sustainability at Natural Habitat Adventures, noted that rather than just focusing on tourism-related programs, he seeks learning opportunities “outside of the tourism industry”, which, when it comes to marketing-related skills, is often “where the innovation comes from”. The learning-form-the-best approach is important in helping the business “stay ahead of the curve”. A key part of this approach, for Natural Habitat Adventures, is sending marketing team members to technical marketing conferences such as Direct Marketing Association (DMA)’s annual conference “&THEN”, Marketing Nation Summit by Marketo, and the inbound marketing conference and training event by Hubspot.
Of course, seeking the best opportunities that are out there, in marketing or other fields, is not always a realistic goal for tourism organizations, especially for small businesses. The key approach and lesson, however, of thinking outside of the tourism box applies to all tourism companies regardless of size or scope. Conclusion: one size does not fit all, but all can benefit from best practices
Worldwide, small and medium-sized enterprises represent the majority of the travel and tourism industry, accounting for over 90% of tourism businesses in some regions (Manente, Minghetti and Mingotto, 2014). This means that the most of the tourism industry employers likely lack the resources and funding to implement best practices in training and skills development in the tourism industry. eTraining, utilizing affordable, scalable and accessible online tools for training and skills development, can be particularly relevant in this context. As demonstrated in this paper, however, not all eTraining options are created equally, and there is no one “right” way of implementing eTraining for tourism organizations. Tourism industry employers therefore have an important responsibility to identify and support opportunities that properly address the context of their employee’s learning and skills development needs. The importance of focusing on the right context, and not just the content, of learning was one of the common themes identified by the TrainingAid survey participants in multiple topic areas.
Another critical point mentioned by many survey participants was that employee training and skills development programs should be, first and foremost, about the people: the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 154 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
interactions learners have with each other, and the connections that they build as part of and because of the learning experience. That personal connections make learning experience meaningful and memorable is a key lesson relevant to any type of training programs, large or small, online or in-person.
One of the industry professionals who participated in the TrainingAid survey, Vera Holwerda-Hirth, Sales Manager, Merapi Tour & Travel, has noted that she has participated in some e-learning programs (e.g. destination specialist online course) and that she finds online learning approaches, in general, can support tourism employers’ training needs and benefit tourism industry professionals seeking skills development opportunities. In her experience, however, developing an expert level knowledge of tourism products and experiences requires much more than a fun and engaging online course, and e-learning, therefore, should be considered as part of a mix of skills development opportunities, not the only solution. Regarding effective learning methods, Ms Holwerda-Hirth added, "I would like to follow more serious courses that will enhance my … knowledge about how things work in the travel business. Most E-training programs are soon forgotten after a few weeks, [but] with personal contact (e.g. webinar or personal training) the information stays longer in mind, at least if they are interesting.”
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 155 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared- value
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2014). PwC Corporate Responsibility Report: The keys to corporate responsibility employee engagement.
Robertson-Smith, G. and Markwick, C. (2009). Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking. Institute for Employment Studies.
Branson, R. (2014, March 27). Look after your staff. Virgin.com. Retrieved from https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/look-after-your-staff
Stacey, J., (2015). “Supporting Quality Jobs in Tourism”, OECD Tourism Papers, 2015/02, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js4rv0g7szr-en
OpenupEd. (2015). "Definition Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)".
TrainingAid. (2016). "Tourism Skills and Jobs: Research on Skills Training for Industry Professionals". Retrieved from https://www.trainingaid.org/news/tourism-skills- and-jobs-research-skills-training-industry-professionals
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2015). "Global Talent Trends and Issues for the Travel & Tourism Sector".
Carson, E. (2014, June 20). How MOOCs are flattening corporate training and education. TechRepublic. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-moocs- are-flattening-corporate-training-and-education/
Meister, J. (2015, June 10). MOOCs Emerge As Disruptors To Corporate Learning. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2015/06/10/moocs-emerge-as- disruptors-to-corporate-learning/#6b1f1e954a8d
Todd, A. and Siemens, G. (2015, January). Context Is King: Why Today’s MOOCs Don’t Meet Corporate Needs. WIRED. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/context-is-king-moocs-corporate- needs/
Fallon, N. (2015, April 10). Soft Skills Matter: Can They Be Taught?. Business News Daily. Retrieved from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7907-improve-employee-soft- skills.html
Manente, M., Minghetti, V., and Mingotto, E. (2014). Responsible Tourism and CSR: Assessment Systems for Sustainable Development of SMEs in Tourism
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 156 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Session 2: C(S)R Attitudes, Practices and Certification of Tourism Businesses
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 157 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Reviewing 24 years of empowering communities by the Africa Foundation
Kevin Mearns
University of South Africa, South Africa, [email protected]
*Acknowledgement: Thanks to the Africa Foundation for providing the data of the projects they have undertaken in Africa over the last 24 years.
Key words: Africa Foundation, empowering communities
Introduction
"Ultimately conservation is about people. If you don’t have sustainable development around these (wildlife) parks, then people will have no interest in them, and the parks will not survive." Nelson Mandela.
Africa is well endowed with many natural wonders and attractions that serve as important draw-cards for tourists. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected areas “are areas of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN, 2016). Protected areas should be managed in a responsible manner to make sure that natural and cultural attractions may be enjoyed by present and future generations (Pullin, 2002). In sharp contrast to this natural abundance, political, economic and social inequalities have resulted in high poverty rates, high levels of illiteracy and unemployment and distorted patterns of resource use. Poor people increasingly see protected areas as land that is being conserved for wealthy foreign visitors and the elite. Local inhabitants in close proximity to protected areas feel excluded and alienated from access to resources on which they have been dependent for their survival (Grossman & Holden, 2003; Snyman, 2012).
Economic opportunities and benefits must accrue to those people who share geographic proximity with protected areas, that is, those who represent local interests rather than purely national and international interests (Fennell, 2003). As early as 1980, the World Conservation Strategy emphasized the importance of linking protected area management with the economic activities of local communities (IUCN, 1980). Tourism is seen as a potential solution to ensure the long-term protection of natural resources and as a means of satisfying the needs of the poor communities in close proximity to protected areas (Magome, 2003; Magakgala, 2003). Charnley (2005) cautions indicating that for sustainable development projects to be successful in communities over the long-term benefits have to be more than purely economic, benefits must promote deeper social and political justice
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 158 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
goals as well.
Responsible, ethical and sustainable tourism is the tourism industry’s reply to growing international and consumer pressure to include and address economic, social and environmental issues. The concept of sustainability has had a profound influence on the world and the way in which the tourism industry, and in fact all business, conducts itself. Business now has to concern itself not only with economics but also with social and environmental issues, referred to as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a business approach for addressing the social and environmental impacts of company activities (Frynas, 2009: 1).” CSR presents a framework that assists organisations in achieving long-term viability, doing so by looking beyond profit maximisation and looking towards their responsibility in society (Werther & Chandler, 2011).
Careful consideration must be given to the minimization of negative environmental impacts while enhancing the positive impacts. Besides the environment, business now has to take all stakeholders into account: employees, state and local communities as well as shareholders, investors and consumers. Companies are also adopting the ‘triple bottom line’ approach to reporting, where social, environmental and economic aspects have to be considered and accounted for. The Institute of Directors of Southern Africa (2002) acknowledges that there is a move away from the single bottom line (profit for shareholders) to a triple bottom line, which embraces the economic, environmental and social aspects of a company’s activities.
The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) have endorsed CSR (WTTC, 2002). CSR involves more than merely donating a portion of profits to worthy causes; it has become a core philosophy of business. The WTTC (2002, p. 2) explains CSR as adopting open and transparent business practices that are based on ethical values. It means responsibly managing all aspects of operations for their impact not just on shareholders, but also on employees, communities and the environment. Ultimately, CSR is about delivering sustainable value to society at large, as well as to shareholders, for the long term benefit of both.
This paper investigates different approach to CSR through which a luxury wildlife tourism company &Beyond established a foundation, namely the Africa Foundation to implement rural community development projects in close proximity to the tourism ventures it operates. This approach utilises social exchange theory, which assumes that potential beneficial outcomes will create positive attitudes towards tourism and the tourism ventures (Andereck et al., 2005; Teye et al., 2002).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 159 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Africa Foundation
The Africa Foundation a non-profit organization was founded in 1992 (originally called the Rural Investment fund) when Conservation Corporation Africa (since then also renamed and rebranded to &Beyond) was founded in South Africa. A central principle of the Conservation Corporation’s safari lodge business model was the belief that the involvement and economic development of the communities surrounding wildlife conservation areas were essential to the success of lodge operations. The Africa Foundation was set up to uplift, up- skill and empower rural communities and enable conservation within communities living adjacent to conservation areas in Africa. Africa Foundation is committed to working with these communities to identify, fund and build (Carlisle, 2007).
Africa Foundation was set up as the community development foundation of &Beyond. &Beyond is a globally recognised luxury responsible tourism company that operates a series of luxury lodges throughout southern and eastern Africa, and the Indian subcontinent. The company is driven by a set of core values: ‘Care of the land. Care of the wildlife. Care of the people.’ These core values are driven by a business philosophy of taking less and giving more (&Beyond, 2015). Taking less relates to reducing the footprint of the business, while giving more in turn means giving to the land, the wildlife and the communities which form an integral part of the tourism experience. It is the communities’ active involvement that leaves a positive legacy (&Beyond, no date). So while &Beyond takes care of the operations of the tourism side of the business, African Foundation works with the communities within which the &Beyond lodges find themselves.
Africa Foundation succeeds where other non-profit organizations fail because it has long- term relationships with the communities in which it works. Africa Foundation believes that successful projects require that the community be actively involved in the selection and development of the project, in the building of the project and the successful running of the project once Africa Foundation is no longer actively involved. Projects are only sustainable if the community takes ownership of them, and this approach is what attracts and secures the support of Africa Foundation’s many loyal donors.
Africa Foundation works hard to ensure that the greatest possible percentage of each contribution goes directly to the communities it supports. Because Africa Foundation builds and maintains strong, long-term relationships with these communities, it can assure its supporters that the money invested in projects is efficiently and effectively spent (Africa Foundation, 2015b). Funding needs are identified by in-depth consultation and agreement with the communities to ensure that Africa Foundation only funds projects that are sustainable by virtue of community buy-in and active involvement on an on-going basis.
All Africa Foundation projects are managed on the ground by organizations that have high quality management and donor relationships, accountability, the ability to provide comprehensive feedback and a measurable and favorable impact on the community. During personal communication with Ms Virginia Bachoo (Donor Relationship Officer-Africa Foundation) and Mr Francois Peenz (Chief Executive Officer-Africa Foundation) they eluded
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 160 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
to the African Foundation project lifecycle which is illustrated in Figure 1.
Firstly, a project identification process is undertaken through extensive consultation with the community, during which projects are identified and prioritised. Secondly, Africa Foundations then costs the project, develops an implementation plan for the project and does the fundraising for the particular project. Only once the funds have been received does the Project implementation process start, which is facilitated by Africa Foundation community development workers. Once the project implementation has been completed the project is then handed over to the community to run the project. During and after the implementation Project monitoring and evaluation is carried out to ensure the project is delivered on time and within budget while delivering on the expected outcomes of the project.
“Africa Foundation’s inclusive methodology ensures communities’ needs are met in consultation with their leaders, the relevant arms of government and the specifications of our donors.” Mr Francois Peenz (Chief Executive Officer-Africa Foundation)
Figure 1: Africa Foundation Project Lifecycle (Africa Foundation-personal communication)
Originally Africa Foundation may have been seen as &Beyonds CSR implementation organisation but has since become autonomous but still has very strong links with &Beyond. &Beyond still provides the Africa Foundation with logistical and administrative support, Africa Foundation through together with its affiliates in the USA and UK raises its own funds for project implementation.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 161 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In Africa Foundation’s 24 years of operation, Africa Foundation has completed a wide range of projects (Table 1).
Table 1: Completed projects and achievement of Africa Foundation.
Access to water for 56 000 people through water tanks, pumps, boreholes and dams
Provided 4174 Hippo Water Rollers, moving 2 million litres of water per month
30 food gardens and six commercial farms to promote food security and nutrition and to stimulate household incomes
Constructing more than 200 classrooms at schools and pre-schools, as well as other infrastructure such as teachers’ accommodation and office administration facilities
Building and equipping three media centres, improving academic facilities for thousands of children
Increasing environmental awareness among all schoolchildren and teachers through conservation lessons for 500 teachers and 7 000 school children
The introduction and management of a bursary programme granting scholarships to 387 aspirant community leaders
Built 2 and supported 5 clinics
Constructing 145 EnviroLoos (permanent, waterless, sanitary, environmentally friendly toilets) and installing more than 200 water tanks at schools and community- based institutions
Providing accredited computer training to hundreds of community members in the Digital Eco-Village
Supporting 10 centres for home-based care volunteers who provide services to orphaned and vulnerable children and elderly community members
Facilitating the installation of electricity at schools and community-based institutions
Some of the other programmes Africa Foundation has facilitated include the introduction of conservation lessons in school curricula, training community members for positions in the hospitality industry, and the Positive Health programme, which trains and supports remote communities on nutrition and HIV/ Aids issues. The Positive Health programme alone has reached more than 30 000 people (Africa Foundation, 2015a).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 162 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The Africa Foundation sees its role as being to:
. Facilitate the fulfilment of needs identified by rural communities
. Communicate those needs to potential donors
. Allocate and manage donor funds prudently
. Work with community leaders and project champions to achieve the success of the project
. Account and report to donors
. Evaluate the short and long-term impacts of its projects
The projects facilitated by Africa Foundation are based on two sets of values:- they are grounded in community participation and are driven by local leadership. Partnership with local stakeholders is vital for the achievement of the projects' goals and the organisation plays a critical role in forging the relationship between communities, local government and &Beyond (Personal communication, 2016).
The Africa Foundation focuses on four key development areas:
. Education
. Healthcare
. Enterprise development
. Conservation
These projects include:
. Education: Classrooms, preschools, school kitchens, bath rooms, media centres, libraries, teacher and student accommodation, day care centres, computer centres, textbooks, feeding schemes,
. Healthcare, Water relief programmes, rain water harvesting and transportation, clinics, HIV/AIDS Initiatives.
. Enterprise development: training and skills development, bursary programmes, Food gardens and tourism supply-chain related industries, craft markets,
. Conservation: environmental awareness for teaches and children, rhino relocations. Success factors
Through discussions and the review of Projects implemented a number of success factors have been identified that could assist similar organisations seeking to implement projects in
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 163 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
rural communities.
• Commitment to building long-term partnerships with communities for their development.
• Satisfying the needs of the community not the wants of the community.
• Co-opting government to take join responsibility for the development of its communities.
• Developing entrepreneurial opportunities that form part of the tourism supply chain.
• Prioritising projects with the community
• Not only economically beneficial projects are implemented by a wide diversity of projects are implemented within communities
• Working simultaneously on short-; long- and medium term targets and projects.
• Evaluation and monitoring of the projects
A close synergy exists between Africa Foundation, &Beyond and the communities in which they operate. Africa Foundation’s needs &Beyond to promote, co-implement and generate donations and sponsorships for Africa Foundation. While &Beyond relies on Africa Foundation to work with communities and develop the villages and meet some of the needs in communities (Burns & Barrie, 2005). The communities in turn need &Beyond for the tourism and related job opportunities as well as the Africa Foundation for their project management, financial skills and donor sourcing functions. All three these entities are inter dependent and interconnected for a long-term mutually beneficial association. Conclusion
This research determined important success factors for the implementation of community projects in rural communities that live in close proximity to protected areas which serve as important tourist attractions. Although the Africa Foundation is an independent Foundation close links and support for the foundation are always forthcoming from &Beyond and its guests. Africa Foundation may thus be seen as the Corporate Social Responsibility implementer for &Beyond and its guests who want to contribute toward the empowerment of communities living adjacent to conservation areas and thereby enabling future conservation efforts. Africa Foundation provides an important mechanism to drive sustainable development projects in these rural communities.
Corporate Social Responsibility in the tourism industry does not only take place in urban environments or in close proximity to tourism and leisure resorts but often takes place in remote rural settings. Communities living close to protected areas need to receive direct and indirect benefits associated with these protected areas. Wildlife Tourism within these protected areas provides a source and means for the distribution of benefits to these
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 164 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
communities.
References
&Beyond no date. Give More Take Less: Sustainability stories from &Beyond [Guest brochure]. Arusha: &Beyond.
&Beyond 2015. &Beyond and Sustainability [Brochure].Johannesburg: &Beyond.
Africa Foundation 2015a About Africa Foundation [Brochure]. Johannesburg, Africa Foundation.
Africa Foundation 2015b. Africa Foundation. Retrieved online 3 March 2015 [www.africafoundation.org].
Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. and Vogt, C.A. 2005. ‘Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts.’ Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4):1056-1076.
Burns, P.M. & Barrie, S. 2005. Race, space and Our own piece of Africa: Doing Good in Luphisi Village? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (5): 468-485.
Carlisle, L. 2007.Conservation and community Development: The Conservation Corporation Africa Model. In R. Bushell, & P.F.J Eagles (eds) Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond boundaries, CABI, Wallingford, 244-263.
Charnley, S. 2005. From nature tourism to ecotourism? The Case of the Ngorogoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Human Organisation 64(1), 75-88.
Fennell, D.A. 2003. Ecotourism: an introduction. (Second edition). London: Routledge.
Frynas, J.G. 2009. Beyond corporate social responsibility: Oil multinationals and social challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, D. & Holden, P. 2003. Spreading the benefits of conservation: indigenous communities, equity and parks. In G.I. Gowan, J. Yawitch & M. Swift. (Eds.). Strategic innovations in biodiversity conservation: the South African experience. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
Institute of Directors of Southern Africa 2002. King Report on Corporate Governance in South Africa. Parktown: Institute of Directors of Southern Africa.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 1980. World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. Gland: IUCN.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2016. World Commission on Protected Areas: An Overview. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from IUCN website: http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_overview/
Magakgala, M. 2003. Main streaming protected areas. In G.I. Gowan, J. Yawitch & M. Swift.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 165 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
(Eds.). Strategic innovations in biodiversity conservation: the South African experience. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
Magome, H. 2003. Protected areas and community participation in South Africa: challenges and opportunities. In J. Ledger (Ed.). Walking with nature: protected areas, people and prosperity. Johannesburg: IHS.
Pullin, A.S. 2002. Conservation Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snyman, S. 2012. The Impact of Land Management systems on community attitudes towards tourism and conservation in six South African Countries. Parks, 18 (2), 20- 31.
Teye, V., Sönmez, S.F., & Sirakaya, E. 2002. ‘Resident attitudes toward tourism development.’ Annals of Tourism Research 29 (3):668–688.
Werther, Jr. W.B., & Chandler, D. 2011. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. 2ndedition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) 2002. Corporate Social Leadership in Travel and Tourism. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 166 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Assessing the sustainability reporting of a JSE company on the Travel and Leisure Board, 2010-2012
Candice Hunter* & Kevin Mearns^
*University of Johannesburg, South Africa, [email protected]
^University of South Africa, South Africa, [email protected]
Key words: Sustainability reporting, corporate social responsibility (CSR), Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE): Social Responsible Investment (SRI), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), South African National Standard for Responsible Tourism (SANS 1162).
Introduction
The world is changing into a place where broader spectra of responsibilities are now being embraced. A significant realisation has grown throughout the world that the Earth’s natural resources are scarce. There is vast evidence of the devastating effects that humans have had on the environment. Economic development has resulted in positive (such as emergence of middle classes, better water and electricity supply, better transport systems and education) and negative social impacts around the world (such as high levels of poverty, youth unemployment and the shortages of housing). Protests against these negative social issues have encouraged institutional and corporate efforts to address environmental and social concerns. This has resulted in more organised interventions and incentives for people, companies and governments to change their behaviour and actions that are create negative social and environmental impacts. However, there is still a continuing need to address the environmental and social changes as humans are dependent upon the natural environment and its resources to achieve human development goals.
All the environmental and social problems will have a direct effect on every human being around the world unless steps are taken to mitigate and reverse negative environment effects. It is unsustainable to continue to ‘practice as normal’ focussing only on economic gains. It is crucial to look after the environment and society through changes in behaviours, practices and activities. “Sustainable development had a profound influence on the way people now perceive themselves as an integrated part of the environment: people are increasingly aware that their activities have a significant impact on the environment (Mearns, 2012: 7851).” A strong call for the implementation of sustainable development and triple bottom line reporting has been made. Corporate impropriety resulted in calls for corporate transparency and accountability, which has led to the rising demand for corporate social responsibility, sustainability reporting and sustainable development (Erlandsson &
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 167 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Olinder, 2009; Freemantle, 2005).
The triple bottom line was enforced within the corporate world through several avenues. An influential aspect that has practically forced companies to implement the triple bottom line reporting in South Africa is the development of the King Code III on corporate governance. According to the code, all Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed companies are required to comply with the latest King code, incorporating sustainable development into their business practices (King Committee on Governance, 2009). With the pressure placed on companies to enforce the triple bottom line within their business practices, this has challenged companies to create a balance of economic, social and environmental priorities.
As a consequence to implementation of sustainability practices, sustainability reporting has become an important phenomenon amongst corporations. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a focus on corporate governance, especially with regard to sustainable development and sustainability reporting, also known as triple bottom line reporting (Aras & Crowther, 2008). This has had an influence on business activities and the way in which businesses report their activities.
This paper aims to assess the sustainability reporting performance of a company which is listed on the JSE Travel and Leisure Board (hereafter referred to as the company or the case study). This research will benchmark the information reported on in the annual reports against the sustainability reporting guidelines of the GRI G3.1, JSE: SRI Index sustainability criteria and SANS 1162 sustainability criteria. The study will also identify gaps that exist between the sustainability reporting guidelines and the manner in which the company is currently reporting. The research problem this study addresses is the lack of understanding of the extent to which tourism companies are adhering to various sustainability reporting criteria within their annual sustainability reports. The aim of this paper is to determine the extent to which the sustainability reports of the company adheres to the GRI G3.1 guidelines, JSE: SRI criteria and the SANS 1162 criteria. The emergence of sustainable development
The concept of sustainable development originated in 1972 and evolved over the years through a number of international initiatives and conferences (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010). The first international meeting that took place to discuss environmental issues and sustainability was held in Stockholm in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The conference was held due to growing concern internationally on the destruction of nature, pollution and quality of life (Correa do Lago, 2009).
The recommendations that came from the UN Conference led to the establishment of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Another major international conference, the World Commission on Environment and Development conference, included representatives from developed and developing countries, was aimed at addressing issues of “accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development (Drexhage &
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 168 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Murphy, 2010: 7).” Since the report from the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 entitled ‘our common future’ (also referred to as the Brundtland report) was published, sustainable development has been defined by the Brundtland Report as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987: 45).”
After the publication of the Brundtland Report, the 1992 Rio Summit at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Earth Summit) was held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Where leaders set out 27 principles of sustainable development, coining the concept of the ‘three pillars’ where a balance of economic, social and environmental aspects is required to achieve sustainable development (Correa do Lago, 2009 & Sheerwood, 2007). The Earth Summit adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, a global plan of action for sustainable development (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010: 8).
Agenda 21 is an agreement between 179 countries that states the terms for countries to work towards an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable future with the help of nine major groups in society, as it is impossible for governments to achieve sustainable development on their own. The major groups identified were: 1) Business (Commerce and Industry); 2) NGOs; 3) Children and Youth; 4) Scientific and Technological Community; 5) Farmers; 6) Women; 7) Indigenous Peoples; 8) Workers and Trade Unions; and 9) Local Authorities (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 2013, UN Sustainable Development, 1992). Agenda 21 includes 40 separate chapters regarding sustainable development initiatives; and in chapter 30, it states the importance of strengthening the role that business and industry play.
Agenda 21 affirms that one of the main priorities for businesses should be environmental management, this being the core determinant to achieve sustainable development. Agenda 21 also outlines the way in which businesses can address the issues of sustainable development through annually reporting on their environmental practices. “Hence, one of the major outcomes from the 1992 Earth Summit was the recognition that part of the responsibility for the environmental problems rested with business (Sheerwood, 2007: 21).”
Corporations have the resources, global reach and motivation to assist in achieving sustainability through modifying their business operations and practices. There have been numerous initiatives focusing on the corporate responsibility, including the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Equator Principles, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Global Combat, and Global Reporting Initiative (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010).
The World Business Council on Sustainable Development was established in 1995 to provide businesses with methods to adopt sustainable business practices (WBCSD, 2002). The Rio Summit also established environmental governance instruments, which include the 1994 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 169 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Following the Rio Summit, the Kyoto Protocol placed mandatory emission targets for industrialised countries and also established the trading system between countries of carbon credits (Bohringer, 2003). Another international meeting assembled in relation to sustainability was the Johannesburg Summit- World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002 (Rio +10) convened with the goal of establishing a plan of implementation that would accelerate and strengthen the enforcement of the principles approved in Rio de Janeiro (Earth Summit) (Correa do Lago, 2009: 18).
Lastly, the 2012 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Earth Summit Rio+20 held in Brazil was aimed at setting a global sustainability agenda for the coming decade (UNCSD, 2013). The emergence of sustainable development highlights the crucial combination of economic, environmental and social issues; and the need for policies and actions to be modified, adapted and monitored continually (Mearns, 2012). The growing implementation of the sustainable development concept adds new focus on the business and industrial sector within Agenda 21, whereby this sector plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable development.
Corporate social responsibility in South Africa
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been a focus in corporate governance especially with regard to sustainable development and sustainability reporting also known as triple bottom line reporting (Aras & Crowther, 2008). In the 1990s, a dramatic increase of CSR reporting occurred mostly in areas of social and environmental disclosures. One of the main influencing factors causing a rise in CSR reporting, was the development of integrated sustainability reporting resulting from the King Code on corporate governance (KPMG Advisory N.V. et al., 2010). “A sustainability report conveys disclosures on an organisation’s impacts – be they positive or negative – on the environment, society and the economy (GRI, 2013: 3).” Applying business ethics, a responsible way of doing business, has since become a growing trend and has had an influence on business activities and the way in which businesses report their activities.
Sustainable business performance has increasingly become a more integrated approach in companies, focusing priorities on economic, social and environmental performance, rather than only focusing on financial performance (Unterlerchner & Malan, 2008). “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a business approach for addressing the social and environmental impacts of company activities (Frynas, 2009: 1).”
The concept of CSR is constantly evolving and has been applied and defined in numerous ways (Belal, 2008; Shastri & Banjeree, 2010) that have become central to business reporting (Aras & Crowther, 2008). The concept of CSR has been interpreted in different ways by different groups of people, thereby all having different viewpoints on the meaning of CSR (Frynas, 2009). Due to different interpretations of CSR, there is no single inclusive definition of CSR that is followed. Consequently, it is referred to as an inclusive term used for many theories and practices (Aras & Crowther, 2008; Belal, 2008; Frynas, 2009) that identifies the following aspects: “(a) that companies have a responsibility for their impact on society and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 170 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the natural environment, sometimes beyond that of legal compliance and the liability of individuals; (b) that companies have a responsibility for the behaviour of others with whom they do business (e.g., within supply chains); and (c) that business needs to manage its relationship with wider society, whether for reasons of commercial viability or to add value to society (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005: 503).”
CSR presents a framework that assists organisations in achieving long-term viability, doing so by looking beyond profit maximisation and looking towards their responsibility in society (Werther & Chandler, 2011). CSR therefore embraces a range of economic, legal, ethical and discretionary actions that affect the economic performance of the firm (Werther & Chandler, 2011). Sustainability reporting in South Africa
South Africa has participated in the move towards sustainability reporting predominantly since the transition to democracy in 1994; particularly regarding the measurement and reporting on social issues (e.g., employment equity and black economic empowerment) due to legislative changes (KPMG Advisory N.V. et al., 2010). For many years, corporate reporting meant companies were reporting on their financial information presented in their annual reports (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2013). These financial reports are mandatory for large corporations in most countries, and in South Africa it is a requirement for all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) (JSE, 2013). Financial reports are publicly available and provide stakeholders and shareholders with intricate information on a company’s financial procedures and practices (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2013).
Concerns of natural resources depletion and damage to social conditions led to the movement of sustainable development in organisations, and organisations are now actively reporting on their responsible practices (Hitchcock & Willard, 2009). The two major drivers of increasing sustainability reporting in South Africa emerged due to corporate governance requirements and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s (JSE) Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index (KPMG Advisory N.V. et al., 2010).
Over the past two decades, more companies are disclosing non-financial information in their annual reports; communicating to their stakeholders the company’s current practices, policies and performance on aspects of environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2013). “Sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organisational performance towards the goal of sustainable development (GRI, 2011: 3).” Sustainability reporting has become an important aspect of annual reporting among corporates. Disclosing social and environmental performance of responsible policies, practices and performance together with financial reporting provides great benefits for companies. There are various sustainability reporting guidelines and standards that direct business on the way to report on sustainability issues.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 171 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Sustainability reporting guidelines
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The GRI framework is the highest standard for sustainable reporting and the framework is used all around the world (GRI, n.d. a). According to Griseri and Seppala (2010: 284) “…the Global Reporting Initiative launched the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines to provide standards for collecting, compiling and presenting data on economic, social and environmental impacts of organisational activity.” These guidelines are globally the most credible and the initiative is the most influential that discloses the main elements of the triple bottom line in sustainable development.
Any organisation of any size, from any sector all around the world can apply the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI, 2006). The G3.1 Guidelines launched in 2011 includes sustainability disclosures that complete the previous guidelines of the G3 version from 2006. The G3.1 guidelines provide more guidance on local community impacts, human rights and gender, and guidance on how to define the content of a sustainability report (GRI, 2011). The G3.1 guidelines have been used in this study as the new G4 guidelines were only issued after the inception of this study.
Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE): Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)
The King III report on corporate governance introduced the requirements for sustainability reporting whereby every company should report at least annually on the nature and extent of its social, transformation, ethical, safety, health and environmental management policies and practices (Unterlerchner & Malan, 2008). The JSE has been influential in promoting sustainability.
Sustainability activities of the JSE include: “company regulation (the listings requirements include a requirement to apply the principles of the King Code on Corporate Governance or explain where this has not occurred); investment tools (such as the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index series and other customised products); and sustainability advocacy as well as a growing focus on strategic internal sustainability (Mazullo, 2012: 1).”
The SRI recognises companies, which adhere to practices within the triple bottom line approach, this being measuring performance against criteria of environmental sustainability reporting, economic sustainability reporting and social sustainability reporting (Unterlerchner & Malan, 2008). JSE listed companies are required to comply with the King reports on corporate governance which have been noted as the most effective summary of the best international practices in corporate governance (Cliffe Dekker Attorneys, 2002). The SRI also provides a tool to align company practices against global corporate responsibility standards. The JSE is the first stock exchange of an emerging market that has established a sustainability index (Mazullo, 2012). According to Mazullo (2012), the SRI index has two purposes: to promote responsibility and transparency of companies; and to encourage stakeholders to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues when evaluating potential investments (Mazullo, 2012).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 172 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
South African National Standards: Responsible Tourism (SANS 1162)
‘Responsible Tourism’ was identified by the ‘1996 White Paper on the Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa’ as the leading principle for tourism development in South Africa. The National Department of Tourism (NDT) adopted the principle of responsible tourism to guide sustainable growth of and in the tourism sector in South Africa (NDT, 2011).
The responsible tourism concept was interpreted differently by different organisations. Responsible tourism was not being consistently applied in terms of economic, environmental and social aspects. There was also no method for consumers and the NDT to assess the responsible tourism performance of organisations without a unified national minimum standard for responsible tourism being established (COP 17/ CMP7, 2011). As a result of this, the South African ‘National Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism (NMSRT)’ was developed in 2011, referred to as the SANS 1162.
The SANS 1162 has been developed to: a) establish a common understanding of the minimum criteria for responsible tourism; b) promote responsible tourism in the tourism sector, including accommodation, hospitality, travel distribution systems, as well as all organs of state and entities, organised labour and communities involved or interested in the tourism sector in South Africa; c) establish the minimum criteria for certification of the sustainability of organisations in the tourism sector; and d) be in line with the National Guidelines for Responsible Tourism and the global sustainable tourism criteria (SANS 1162, 2011: 1).
Sustainability reporting is a relatively new topic of investigation within South Africa and it is important that sustainability reporting with responsible tourism practices continually improves over the years to come, putting pressure on companies to provide even better performance and better performance reports with regard to improved sustainability (Kolk, 2004). However, annual reports need to be assessed in order to evaluate the environmental standards of tourism business performance. Such assessments can be beneficial for companies to improve their reporting, reduce environmental impacts and gain competitive advantage through sustainable practices, especially in the tourism sector as there is a growing international demand for responsible tourism (Font & Harris, 2004).
Research design and methodology
The research design of the study follows a case study and content analysis approach. Content analysis was the main research design for collecting empirical evidence for this study. Mouton (2001: 165) defines content analysis as “studies that analyse the content of texts or documents (such as letters, speeches and annual reports).” This is where existing (secondary data) qualitative and quantitative information is analysed and where there is little control over the outcome of the results (Mouton, 2001). Content analysis has become a widely used method for evaluating the extent of reporting by listed stock exchange companies in annual reports (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 173 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
A specific company listed on the Travel and Leisure Board of the JSE was selected for the study that had produced annual reports for the past three years (2010 to 2012) was chosen to serve as the specific case study for the investigation. The content analysis approach of the three consecutive years of annual reports for the company served as the primary research approach for the study. Three evaluation frameworks were developed using only the core components of the GRI, JSE: SRI and SANS 1162: Responsible Tourism criteria. Annual reports for 2010 -2012 were evaluated against the frameworks developed in order to assess the extent of adherence of sustainability reporting of the tourism company.
The study also generates new empirical evidence using the existing secondary data in the research process, being the annual reports. This study will use a quantitative research process. Quantitative data was obtained through the evaluation frameworks developed for each guideline, comprising numerous indicators, which will be used to assess the company’s annual reports. These approaches were used to analyse the annual reports based on the framework developed to determine the extent to which the annual reports meet the GRI, JSE: SRI and Responsible Tourism standards. The study is a descriptive study that presents “evidence of interesting and significant patterns in existing or new data, or new trends in existing or new data (Mouton, 2001: 113).”
The sustainability disclosures of the company’s annual reports from 2010 to 2012 were analysed using three different developed evaluation frameworks from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Johannesburg Stock Exchange: Social Responsible Investment Index (JSE: SRI) and the South African National Standard for Responsible Tourism (SANS 1162). These annual reports were used as the GRI4.0 guideline came out after the study commenced and the GRI4.0 standard would as a result have influenced the very nature of the resultant reports after 2013. The analysis considered whether the indicators in the criteria were addressed by the company fully, partially or not addressed by the company in their published annual reports (information available online was not taken into consideration for this analysis). The results after applying the three evaluation frameworks to the annual reports of the selected case study to determine the extent to which the GRI, JSE: SRI and SANS 1162 criteria have been implemented within their sustainability reporting practices. A table is provided demonstrating the results for each of the framework findings. The table will show the highest possible score that the annual report could achieve in terms of that sustainability guidelines and shows the score that the annual reports from 2010-2012 actually received. The percentage score in each category received was highlighted and colour-coordinated with the robot colours: if the category had a low score between 0-33%, it was highlighted red; if the score was average between 34-67%, it was highlighted yellow; and if a high score was received between 68-100%, then it was highlighted green (see table 1).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 174 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 2: Legend demonstrating the coordinated colours for the percentage scores Legend: % Score Red 0%-33% Yellow 34%-67% Green 68%-100%
Table 1 demonstrates the colour displays for the percentage scores, which has been applied to all the percentage results from the case study findings that can be seen in the table results for the case study. Line graphs representing the results for each category within the sustainability guideline are also provided to demonstrate the sustainability reporting findings of the company.
Findings
GRI findings
The GRI results for the case study under investigation are presented in table 2 and figure 1. The annual reports were reviewed against the GRI evaluation framework to determine the extent that the company is reporting its activities and practices based on this international guideline. The results are presented below, demonstrating how the company has been reporting sustainability with relation to the GRI framework.
Table 3: Findings based on the GRI G3.1 guideline
Travel and Leisure Company
Highest 2010 Scores 2011 Scores 2012 Scores possible score Score Percentage Score Percentage Score Percentage Received score Received score Received score GRI G3.1 Profile 84 29 35% 57 68% 58 69% Economic 14 6 43% 6 43% 8 57% Environmental 34 4 12% 8 24% 11 32% Social 62 1 2% 9 15% 18 29% GRI G3.1 (97 Indicators) TOTAL 194 40 21% 80 41% 95 49% It is apparent in table 2 that the company’s sustainability reporting as part of its annual reports is only achieving average results against the GRI indicators. In 2010, the company received a low score of 21%, for its sustainability reporting based on the GRI guideline, and stated that areas of improvement to comply with King III were to be addressed in the following year’s report. The group’s sustainability reporting almost doubled its reporting performance from 2010 to 2011 by jumping to a 41% score. The Company stated in 2011
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 175 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
that “this is first integrated report, in line with the requirements of the King Code report on corporate governance (King III) (Anonymous, 2011).” Sustainability reporting by the company continued to improve from 2011 to 2012, achieving a score of 49% based on the GRI guideline evaluation. This improvement is as a result of the company applying the GRI guidelines where applicable to their reporting practices (Anonymous, 2012). There is, however, still room for improvement for the company to meet the GRI G3.1 indicators even better in future reporting, especially in terms of the Environmental and Social categories. As demonstrated in table 2, the company continuously received low scores for its reporting on Social and Environmental indicators between 2010 and 2012. These are aspects that need serious improvement to meet the requirements of the GRI guidelines. Figure 1 demonstrates the case study under investigation’s sustainability reporting performance in terms of the specific categories within the GRI framework.
100% 90% 80% 70% Profile 60% Economic 50% Environmental 40%
Percentage Score Percentage 30% Social 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 5: Results for the GRI G3.1 categories from 2010-2012
Notably, the company has improved its sustainability reporting from 2010 to 2012 in all the categories under the GRI framework. The Social category improved from 2% in 2010 to 29% in 2012; however, the Human Rights section under the Social category still lacked information each year. The Environmental reporting had also improved. However, indicators under Emissions, Effluent and Waste were poorly reported on and should be improved in future. Reporting on the Profile category improved the most over the years and received the highest score in 2012 compared to the other categories. Reporting on Economic issues related to the GRI guideline improved from 2011 to 2012 and was the category that received the second highest score in 2012. Overall, the categories that still require attention in order to improve the sustainability reporting in terms of the GRI sustainability guideline are the Social and Environmental categories. For future growth in terms of sustainability reporting, the company needs to focus more on Environmental and Social aspects in the future, to grow into a fully sustainable company, balancing the economic, social and environmental performance. The key areas of improvement identified
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 176 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
for the case study company’s sustainability reporting practices in terms of the GRI framework are as follows;
• Profile performance
o Organisational profile (indictors 2.7- 2.9)
o Report parameters . Report scope and boundary (indicators 3.10- 3.11)
. GRI Content Index
. Assurance
o Governance, commitments and engagement . Governance
• Economic performance
o Market presence • Environmental performance
o Material
o Energy (indirect energy consumption- EN4)
o Biodiversity (EN11)
o Emissions, effluent and waste
o Product and services (EN27) • Social performance
o Labour practices and decent work
o Human rights
o Society (Corruption and public policy)
o Product responsibility
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 177 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
JSE: SRI findings
The company’s annual reports were reviewed with an evaluation framework developed from the JSE: SRI criteria (JSE, 2011). The evaluation results are presented in table 3 and figure 2 and are discussed below, explaining the company’s sustainability reporting based on the JSE: SRI criteria.
Table 4: Findings based on the JSE: SRI guideline Travel and Leisure Company
Highest 2010 Scores 2011 Scores 2012 Scores possible score Score Percentage Score Percentage Score Percentage Received score Received score Received score JSE: SRI Environmental 34 17 50% 21 62% 21 62% Social 68 37 54% 45 66% 51 75% Governance & related sustainability concerns 56 26 46% 27 48% 27 48% Climate change 6 2 33% 4 67% 4 67% JSE: SRI (82 Indicators) TOTAL 164 82 50% 97 59% 103 63%
Based on the JSE SRI findings presented in table 3, it is noticeable that the company’s sustainability reporting has only slightly improved overall from 2010 to 2012. It is noticeable, based on the JSE: SRI criteria, that the company has received average total scores throughout the years under review. There has been slight improvement from year to year percentage-wise; the 2010 annual report received a score of 50%; in 2011, this score in the sustainability reporting improved by 9% to 59% and further improved by 4% to 63% in 2012. However, all these percentage scores for the sustainability reporting between 2010 and 2012, remained in the ‘average’ category based on the robot colour arrangement. This indicates that the case study under investigation was slowly improving their sustainability reporting from year to year; however, there is still some room for improvement based on the findings retrieved from reviewing the annual reports.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 178 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
100% 90% 80% 70% Environmental 60% 50% Social 40% 30% Governance & Percentage Score Percentage 20% Sustainability 10% Climate change 0% 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 6: Results for the JSE: SRI categories from 2010-2012
It is apparent from figure 2 and table 3 that the social category improved the most from 2010 to 2012 (receiving 75% in 2012- green score). The sections that were well reported on in the Social category were as follows; BEE; Community Relations and Equal Opportunities. Another category that improved substantially over the years was Climate Change. 2010 information reported on regarding climate change had doubled in 2011 (from 33% to 67%). The Governance and Environmental reporting for the company had stayed fairly similar between 2010 and 2012. It is apparent that there is still some opportunity for the company to improve its sustainability reporting based on the JSE; SRI guideline.
The key areas of improvement of the sustainability reporting practices in terms of the JSE: SRI framework are as follows:
• Environmental performance
• Social performance
o Health and safety • Governance and related sustainability concerns
o Code of ethics
o Indirect impacts
o Business value and risk management
o Broader economic issues
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 179 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
SANS 1162 findings
The results for the company’s sustainability reporting after their annual reports were benchmarked against the SANS 1162 criteria are presented in table 4; further results of reporting in terms of the different categories within the SANS 1162 criteria is illustrated within figure 3 below.
Table 5: Findings based on the SANS 1162 guideline
Travel and Lesiure Company
Highest 2010 Scores 2011 Scores 2012 Scores possible score Score Percentage Score Percentage Score Percentage Received score Received score Received score SANS 1162 Sustainable operation & management 20 8 40% 10 50% 10 50% Social & Cultural 18 4 22% 4 22% 4 22% Economic 16 4 25% 6 38% 6 38% Environmental 28 9 32% 9 32% 9 32% SANS 1162 (41 Indicators) TOTAL 82 25 30% 29 35% 29 35%
Table 4 demonstrates how the company reported between 2010 and 2012. In 2010, a low score was received after being benchmarked against the SANS 1162 criteria. In 2011, the reporting improved by 5% although it remained stagnant in 2012. The two categories that did not improve over the years in terms of the SANS 1162 guideline were the Environmental and Social category. Figure 3 demonstrates the trends of reporting for each category within the SANS 1162 criteria.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 180 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
100% 90% 80% Sustainable operation & 70% management 60% Social & Cultural 50% 40% Economic
Percentage Score Percentage 30% Environmental 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012
Year Figure 7: Results for the SANS 1162 categories from 2010-2012
The Social category for SANS 1162 criteria focuses more on the local cultural, history, heritage, artefacts, spiritual and religious aspects that may not relate to the urban nature of the company’s business. Also, the Environmental category has a strong focus on biodiversity conservation, endangered and threatened species, alien invasive plant species, which are aspects that the company does not report upon. This could be a result of the company operating primarily in urban areas. However, if the company is having minimal impact on these cultural and environmental aspects, it is important for future reporting to state the status of the company in terms of these indicators in order to be seen to be transparent and accountable. Therefore, the company’s sustainability reporting has room for improvement throughout the categories within the SANS 1162 criteria. The key areas of improvement identified for the sustainability reporting practices in terms of the SANS 1162 framework are as follows:
• Sustainable operations and management
• Social and cultural performance
• Economic performance
• Environmental performance
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 181 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Overall findings
After all three years of annual reports were reviewed using the three evaluation frameworks developed from the GRI, JSE:SRI and SANS 1162 guidelines, the overall results are presented in figure 4.
The overall findings show that the company is receiving an average score consistently in terms of the company’s sustainability reporting after reviewing 2010, 2011 and 2012 annual reports against the three evaluation frameworks. The evaluation framework that the company received its highest scores for was the JSE: SRI and the lowest scores were presented in the SANS 1162 criteria.
100% 90% 80% 70% 2012 2011 60% 2010 50% 2012 2010 2011 2011 40% 2011 2012 2012 2010 Percentage Score Percentage 30% 59% 63% 2010 49% 50% 41% 20% 35% 35% 30% 10% 21% 0% GRI JSE SANS Sustainability Reporting Criteria Figure 8: Sustainability reporting from 2010-2012
The company stated that they focussed on reducing their carbon footprint through energy conservation which has, in turn, provided economic benefits of savings (Anonymous, 2013). This is apparent after reviewing all three years against the three different evaluation frameworks. However, a noticeable trend that followed the GRI and SANS 1162 guideline was that the company’s Environmental and Social reporting requires improvement based on the requirements of those two frameworks. Both evaluation frameworks picked up that the annual reports from 2010-2012 lacked information required by the Environmental and Social category, which are avenues that can be improved upon in future reporting to further contribute towards sustainable development.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 182 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Conclusion, limitations and recommendations.
This research was focused on determining the extent to which the annual reports of a JSE company on the Travel and Leisure Board adhered to the GRI G3.1 guidelines, JSE: SRI criteria and the SANS 1162 criteria. The annual reports of the selected case study were benchmarked against the developed evaluation frameworks to assess the company’s performance in terms of its sustainability reporting practices. The use of indicators in the developed evaluation frameworks provided a means of collecting empirical data to determine the sustainability reporting performance. Focus on the triple bottom line has increasingly grown over the years.
It is noticeable in the case study that since sustainability reporting became a requirement for JSE listed companies due to the establishment of the latest King III code on corporate governance in 2009 (it became effective on 1 March 2010), sustainability reporting practices have gradually improved from year to year within the selected company. After reviewing the companies’ annual reports with the three sustainability guidelines, the improvement of sustainability reporting over the years is apparent throughout the resultant findings extracted through the use of the evaluation frameworks investigation.
Since the implementation of the King III code, companies have taken corrective action towards achieving sustainability in their companies and in their sustainability reporting. The implementation of the GRI framework into their reporting practices and appointing an independent external assurance provider, has improved the standard of reporting. “Sustainability reporting can help organisations to measure, understand and communicate their economic, environmental, social and governance performance. Sustainability – the ability for something to last for a long time or indefinitely (GRI, n.d. b).”
Overall, the study provides an overview on the rate and progress improvement in the company’s sustainability reporting over the period of 2010 to 2012 (after King III was established in 2009 and implemented in March 2010), based on three different evaluation frameworks. There are a number of benefits that can come from assessing sustainability reports of a company which was established throughout the findings of the study; to improve their reporting, reduce environmental impacts and gain a competitive advantage through sustainable practices, especially in the tourism sector where there is growing pressure for responsible tourism practices (Font & Harris, 2004).
Determining sustainability reporting practices of companies can be examined effectively through the use of a series of evaluation frameworks that include numerous core indicators retrieved from sustainability guidelines. The application of the evaluation frameworks has created a path for future research studies in sustainability reporting. “For the first time, there’s an understanding of the urgency that sustainability, in every possible meaning of the word, is the only way forward (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011: 18).”
Some limitations of the study were that the evaluation process was very subjective to the researchers’ interpretation and opinion of the evaluations and study findings. The annual
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 183 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
reports of the selected case study were reviewed using a series of frameworks to provide validity to the study and in order to provide accuracy. An approach to reduce subjectivity for future studies could be to use a number of reviewers to assess the annual reports of the companies and thereafter use the average results retrieved from assessment in the overall findings. Another limitation was found in the evaluation framework developed from the JSE: SRI indicators.
It was found that many of the JSE indicators were vague, not detailed, and could easily be interpreted differently by different researchers. However, to reduce subjectivity in future studies, it would be necessary to also have external reviewers who could review the evaluation findings retrieved by the researchers, making the study more accurate. The inability to assess how accurately the reports match to the reality of the corporations’ business practices. However, the study findings are based on what the company is claiming – in writing, in their reports – what they have done and not based on what is proven that is actually being done by the company. The study was also limited to the printed hard-copy annual reports and did not extend to the online/website versions and extra published data.
This study only investigated the extent of sustainability reporting within one company listed on the JSE in the Travel and Leisure sector Index. Further research could add value by expanding the scope of the study and include all the companies within the JSE Travel and leisure sector index. Expanding the scope and including all the companies listed on the Travel and Leisure index could provide a valuable cross-case analysis to determine the increased acceptance and implementation of responsible tourism practices among tourism companies. Similar studies on case study companies in different sectors listed on the JSE could follow the same research approach and apply the GRI framework, JSE:SRI framework and include an additional framework based on an industry specific criteria. This would contribute to the body of literature on the topic of sustainability reporting practices of JSE listed companies as well as add value and feedback for other companies in different sectors to improve on their sustainability reporting and in turn improve sustainable development.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 184 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Anonomous. 2011. Anonomous Integrated Annual Report 2011.Johannesburg, Anonymous.
Anonomous. 2012. Anonomous Integrated Annual Report 2012. Johannesburg, Anonymous.
Anonomous. 2013. Anonomous Integrated Annual Report 2013. Johannesburg, Anonymous.
Aras, G. & Crowther, D. 2008. Corporate sustainability reporting: A study in disingenuity? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1): 279-288.
Belal, A.R. 2008. Corporate social responsibility reporting in developing countries: The case of Bangladesh. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Blowfield, M. & Frynas, G.J. 2005. Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world, International Affairs, 81(3): 499-513.
Bohringer, C. 2003. The Kyoto Protocol: A review and perspectives, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19: 451–66.
Cliffe Dekker Attorneys. 2002. King report on corporate governance for South Africa: What it means to you. Available from: http://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2002/corporate/king- report- corporate-governance.html (Accessed on 20 October 2014).
COP 17/ CMP7. 2011. COP 17/ CMP7 Responsible Accommodation Campaign. COP 17/ CMP7 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Durban, South Africa: Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (eThekwini Municipality).
Correa do Lago, A.A. 2009. Stockholm, Rio, Johannesburg, Brazil and the three United Nations conferences on the environment. Brasilia, Brazil: Alexandre De Gusmao Foundation.
Drexhage, J. & Murphy, D. 2010. Sustainable development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). New York: United Nations Headquarters.
Erlandsson, M. & Olinder, M. 2009. Environmental sustainability reporting: Development in Sweden 1998-2008 (Bachelor thesis). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Font, X. & Harris, C. 2004. Rethinking standards from green to sustainable, Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4): 986-1007.
Freemantle, A. 2005. The good corporate citizen: Pursuing sustainable business in South Africa. 2ndedition. Cape Town: Trialogue.
Frynas, J.G. 2009. Beyond corporate social responsibility: Oil multinationals and social challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 185 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). n.d. (a). About sustainability reporting. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sustainability- reporting/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed on 3 December 2015).
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). n.d. (b). What is GRI? Available from http://www.globalreporting.org (Accessed on 20 January 2014).
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2006. G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Sustainability- Reporting-Guidelines.pdf (Accessed on 14 November 2014).
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2011. G3.1 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Sustainability- Reporting-Guidelines.pdf (Accessed on 27 January 2014).
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2013. G4 sustainability reporting guidelines: Standard principles and disclosures. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed on 15 July 2015).
Griseri, P. & Seppala, N. 2010. Business ethics and corporate social responsibility. California: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Guthrie, J. & Abeysekera, I. 2006. Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: What is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 10(2): 114-126.
Hitchcock, D. & Willard, M. 2009. The Business Guide to Sustainability: Practical Strategies and Tools for Organisations. 2nd edition, London: Earthscan.
Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. 2013. The European business review: The rise and consequences of corporate sustainability reporting. Available from: http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=4538 (Accessed on 11 September 2015).
King Committee on Governance 2009. Draft code of governance principles for South Africa. Johannesburg: Institute of Directors in Southern Africa.
Kolk, A. 2004. A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and significance, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1): 51-64.
KPMG Advisory N.V., United Nations Environment Programme, Global Reporting Initiative, Unit for Corporate Governance in Africa. 2010. Carrots and sticks: Promoting transparency and sustainability, an update on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Carrots-And-Sticks-Promoting- Transparency-And-Sustainbability.pdf (Accessed on 15 May 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 186 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Laszlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N. 2011. Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Mazullo, G. 2012. Five questions about SRI: Weekly expert interview with Corli le Roux, head of SRI index and sustainability (Interview 6 April 2012). Strategy and public policy division, Johannesburg Stock Exchange, South Africa. Available from: http://www.emergingmarketsesg.net (Accessed on 12 July 2014).
Mearns, K.F. (2012). ‘Lessons from the application of sustainability indicators to community- based ecotourism ventures in Southern Africa’, African Journal of Business Management, 6(26): 7851-7860.
Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
National Department of Tourism (NDT). 2011. South African National Standard: Responsible Tourism Requirements, SANS 1162. Pretoria: National Department of Tourism.
SANS 1162. 2011. South African National Standard for Responsible Tourism (SANSRT). Pretoria: SABS (South African Bureau of Standards).
Shastri, V. & Banerjee, P.M. 2010. From corporate social responsibility to global social entrepreneurship. In Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability in Business; How Organisations Handle Profits and Social Duties, 1-14. Edited by Banerjee, P. & Shastri, V. London: Sage Publications.
Sheerwood, P. 2007. A triple bottom line evaluation of the impact of special events: The development of indicators (PhD Thesis). Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Hospitality and Tourism Research, Victoria University.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). 2013. Road to Rio+20, UN conference on sustainable development 2012. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/ISciences/road-to-rio20-un-conference-on-sustainable- development-2012 (Accessed on 10 August 2013).
United Nations Sustainable Development. 1992. United Nations conference on environment & development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Agenda 21. Available from: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (Accessed on 03 March 2013).
Unterlerchner, J. & Malan, D. 2008. The corporate response to sustainability reporting, Corporate Governance, 22-27.
Werther, Jr. W.B., & Chandler, D. 2011. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. 2ndedition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2002. Corporate Social
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 187 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Responsibility: The WBCSD’s journey. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 188 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Determining social entrepreneurship perception in business by using SWOT analysis
Ali Şükrü Çetinkaya* & Sema Alimoğlu ÖZKAN^
* Selcuk University, Turkey, [email protected]
^ Selcuk University, Turkey, [email protected]
*Acknowledgement: This paper is granted and supported by Selcuk University (in Turkey), Directorate of the Scientific Researches Projects Committee (BAP) with project number 16701280 to present at the BEST EN Think Tank XVI (hosted by the ZENAT Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, 12-15 July 2016 in Berlin-Eberswalde, Germany).
Key words: Social entrepreneurship, SWOT analysis, industrial enterprises
Abstract
Social entrepreneurship is defined as social actions, which create permanent and sustainable values by offering innovative perspectives to find solutions for social problems. The actors, who take part in troubleshooting and who become pioneers of change and transformation are called social entrepreneurs. Through this empirical research, social entrepreneurship was presented from a strategic perspective by applying SWOT analysis. Research was conducted in industrial enterprises operating in an industrial zone in Konya in Turkey. Hypothesis was tested with 206 valid responses. Data analysis revealed that threats, strengths and weaknesses components of SWOT analysis had significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities. The more frequent social enterprise activity results in more strengths, less threats and less weaknesses for the business enterprise.
Introduction
Social Enterprise is known as a non-profit action aiming social benefits, while social entrepreneurship is social action, which creates permanent and sustainable values by offering innovative perspectives to find solutions for social problems. The actors, who take part in troubleshooting with an innovative perspective by realizing the breakdowns of the environment in which they live, and who become pioneers of change and transformation are social entrepreneurs. Social enterprises are set at the junction point of voluntary activity and commercial activity. They are the textures, which are non-profit for creating social
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 189 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
values; however, they use the resulting profit for the sustainability of their enterprises.
Through this study, the status of social entrepreneurship activates were presented with a strategic perspective, purposefully by applying the SWOT analysis. This research aimed to determine the strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats that might be taken into consideration as part of the social entrepreneurship by the enterprises. Entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship
Companies are channels that direct wealth to many different stakeholders while also generating value and profits for the shareholders. Companies contribute actively to society focuses more on all the stakeholders like the employees, the community, the government, and others who have a stake in whether the company succeeds, and not only on the shareholders. As the nations struggles with problems like poverty, violence, climate change, education disparity, AIDS, and more, social entrepreneurship is exploding in popularity. Social entrepreneurship provides a framework for businesses to find their own success in the pursuit of helping others.
Entrepreneurship is to be able to make innovation by perceiving the opportunities and actualize the activities by overcoming the elements of risks faced in this process. The entrepreneurs having important role in functioning and improvement of the societies produce new ideas, make use the opportunities which are not realized by others and lead the change in business life by affecting the environment in which they are engaged (İlhan, 2004; Özkan, 2003). The concept of social entrepreneurship is a complement of activities which quickly emerge in public and private sectors but non-profit (Özdevecioğlu & Cingöz, 2009).
Social entrepreneurship is defined as not being indifferent to the problems of the environment and produce permanent solutions to overcome these problems (Denizalp, 2009). Social entrepreneurs are the persons who have innovative and distinctive ideas and put their thoughts into practice by supporting these ideas with profit motive. But this profit motive enables the profit gained to be kept for the enterprises in the direction of social purposes and to be used for social neediers, not for the entrepreneur himself or herself as in commercial entrepreneurship (Reyhanoğlu & Özden, 2012). Social entrepreneurship has the feature of contributing positively to social change. It’s the voluntary activity performed by the individuals who are responsible and sensitive to the society in which they live (Kuzgun, 2013).
Social entrepreneurship within the context of SWOT analysis
The term ‘SWOT’ is the acronym of the first letters of the words “strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats”. Strength and weaknesses refer to internal aspects while opportunities and threats refer to external environment aspects of businesses. Through SWOT analysis, the strengths are supported more, the weaknesses are recovered, the opportunities are evaluated and the threats are avoided, so a more realistic strategic planning might be reached. SWOT analysis helps the sources and capabilities to be used in
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 190 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the best way through a systematic evaluation and new strategies and policies to be developed (Akgemci, 2013).
Social entrepreneurship is a sustainable, innovative and social process in which the opportunities are followed in order to create social value or change in almost all sectors and to meet social needs and a certain amount of risk is taken to use these opportunities, the sources are used creatively (Sarıkaya, 2010).
The strengths of social entrepreneurship might enable to find new opportunities and create more effective expansions. Since the weaknesses might cause to embody threats and risks in itself, it might be risky for its future. Social enterprises come into prominence as a new model having a great deal of value for nations (Ersen, Kaya, & Meydanoğlu, 2010). SWOT analysis helps to identify the opportunities important for the future of social enterprises by observing environmental factors.
Social entrepreneurship contributes to provide employment to society. Social entrepreneurs primarily provide employment to the disadvantageous segments of society (the poor, women and children, the handicapped, etc.) and reintegrate them into the society.
The characteristics of social entrepreneurs strengthen entrepreneurial actions. Social entrepreneurs are the people who have the ability to be able to overcome the obstacles with a great ambition and determination. They prepare themselves to work under the aggravated circumstances, thus, improve the skill of systematic working and researching. The ability to perceive the opportunities, the desire to improve self and the ability to influence others are of the most significant characteristics. The presence of these characteristics prompts the person or the organization to reach success (Özdevecioğlu & Cingöz, 2009, p. 22).
Social enterprises have an important role at building a structure for the homogeneous use of all the sources of a community. By bringing different segments of the communities together they are able to gather them under a single roof. By enabling social trust to take place, they are able to collect donations from several segments of community, so they increase material gaining for their activities (Ersen et al., 2010).
Social entrepreneurship includes the concepts such as benevolence, self-devotion, social well-being. Social entrepreneurs are the activists who struggle for the solution of complicated problems of the community in which they live, accordingly take great risks (Betil, 2010). However, they are exposed to unnecessary bureaucratic procedures suspending the entrepreneurial efforts. That many laws don’t recognize the social enterprises as legal structure oblige these kind of organizations to combine as legal entities profit-oriented and non-profit (UNDP, 2012).
Strengths and weaknesses of social entrepreneurship activities for businesses, and the opportunities and the threats for the businesses is not widely investigated in the literature. To contribute both the literature and the practice, the following hypothesis was proposed in this research:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 191 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
H1: There is a significant difference between social enterprise activities of businesses and components of SWOT analysis.
Research methodology
A quantitative research was employed in the research using a questionnaire as data collection instrument. The questionnaire was contained two parts: demographics, and SWOT items for social entrepreneurship activities. The scale for the SWOT was developed by the previous researches (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei‐Skillern, 2006; Buckingham, Pinch, & Sunley, 2010; Kırılmaz, 2013; Villeneuve-Smith & Chung, 2013). The scale was a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from “1. Strongly disagree” on one end to “5. Strongly agree” on the other end. The population of the study was industrial enterprises operating in an industrial zone in Konya in Turkey. The survey was distributed to randomly selected businesses and 206 valid responses obtained in return.
For the purpose of evaluating the validity of the survey, the academics having knowledge of the topic were asked to answer the questions and in accordance with their ideas, the necessary changes were made. As a result of this practice, it was approved to use the revised survey. For validation, questionnaire was submitted to 23 different business managers and experts as a pilot study. Based on the feedbacks and pilot data analysis, survey item was clarified and improved. Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients for internal consistency of 40 SWOT scale items were .98. Findings
Research data was summarized and interpreted according to the predetermined conceptual frame. According to the demographic data 74.3% of respondents were male and 24.3% were female. Considering the marital status of the respondents, 69.9% were married and 27.2% were single. A majority of respondents (68.0%) were in the 30-49 age category. The demographic data also reveal that 44.7% had Bachelor's degree and 25.2% had high school certificate. Majority of the respondents (50.5%) worked for their organization more than 7 years. Number of employees of the most companies (55.4%) were at the range of 50-249. Almost half of the respondents (48.1%) were employees.
Explanatory factor analysis was conducted for the scale items of SWOT analysis for the social entrepreneurship to determine its dimensions. A KMO statistic was calculated as 0.94 for the SWOT items. Then Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was conducted yielding a significant Chi-Square value in order to test the significance of the correlation matrix of information sources (χ=4936.11, df=528, Sig.=.000). This has suggested that the data was suitable for factor analysis.
Explanatory factor analysis suggested four components for SWOT structure, and components named as literature suggested: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The threats factor had the highest Eigenvalue, 7.53 and represented 22.81 percent of the explained variance. The second highest eigenvalue was the strengths factor. This value of 6.59 represent 19.98 percent of the explained variance in the sample. The third
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 192 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
highest eigenvalue is the opportunities factor. This value of 4.80 represented 14.53 percent of the explained variance. The final factor was weaknesses, which had an eigenvalue of 3.88 and represented 11.77 percent of the explained variance. These four components explained 69.08% of total variance explained. Further data analysis was conducted with the compound variables generated as a result of the factor analysis.
The independent variable (the frequency of the social enterprise activities) was non- parametric and contained more than three groups; therefore, a One Way ANOVA was performed to test the proposed hypothesis. Test results revealed that mean of threats has significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities (5, 196) =5.948, p = 0.000, r = 0.01. The effect level of frequency of the social enterprise activities of the organizations on the mean of items for the perception of threats was low.
One Way ANOVA results revealed that mean of opportunities had no significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities F (5, 196) =1.408, p = 0.223. On the other hand, mean of strengths had significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities F (5, 196) =3.422, p = 0.005, r = 0.28. The effect level of frequency of the social enterprise activities of the organizations on the mean of items for the perception of strengths was moderate. Similarly, mean of weaknesses had significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities of the organizations F (5, 196) =2.700, p = 0,022, r = 0,25. The effect level of frequency of the social enterprise activities of the organizations on the mean of items for the perception of weaknesses was moderate. So, the data analysis supported the proposed hypothesis (H1).
Conclusions and recommendations
Social entrepreneurship is considered as a new phenomenon from the conceptual aspect, though the social entrepreneurship activities date back to history. This study displayed that social enterprises are quite important to heal the failing sides of the society from the social aspect. The enterprises which are the economic engines of the communities should also handle the social problems in the society.
Social entrepreneurship activities are adding social mission to our organization, affect their corporate reputation positively, increase the contribution to local economy, provide social transformation, enable the social motivation and realize the social development. Research findings revealed that components of threats, strengths and weaknesses of the SWOT construct had significant difference with the frequency of the social enterprise activities. The more frequent social enterprise activity results in the more strengths, the less threats and also the less weaknesses for the business enterprise. So, social enterprise activities should not be treated as cost items but as intangible assets for the business.
This research is limited to industrial enterprises, and has limitations for the generalization. Similar researches can be conducted in the other sectors to compare the differences among industries.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 193 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Akgemci, T. (2013). Stratejik Yönetim (Yenilenmiş 3. Baskı ed.). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei‐Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1), 1-22.
Betil, İ. (2010). Sivil toplum, sosyal sermaye, sosyal girişimcilik. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(1).
Buckingham, H., Pinch, S., & Sunley, P. (2010). The Regional Geography Of Social Enterprise İn The UK: A Review Of Recent Surveys. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper, 35.
Denizalp, H. (2009). Toplumsal Dönüşüm İçin Sosyal Girişimcilik Rehberi. Retrieved from Ankara: http://panel.stgm.org.tr/vera/app/var/files/s/o/sosyal-girisimcilik-rehberi- 2.-baski.pdf
Ersen, T. B., Kaya, D., & Meydanoğlu, Z. (2010). Sosyal Girişimler ve Türkiye: Ihtiyaç Analizi Raporu. İstanbul: Türkiye Üçüncü Sektör Vakfı (TÜSEV).
İlhan, S. (2004). Girişimcilik ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Süreçteki Rolü. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları, 70-75.
Kırılmaz, S. K. (2013). Sosyal girişimcilerin girişimcilik ve dönüştürücü liderlik algılarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 8(1).
Kuzgun, Ş. (2013). Üniversitelerde Sosyal Sorumluluk ve Sosyal Girişimcilik Pilot Projesi Raporu” Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme.
Özdevecioğlu, M., & Cingöz, A. (2009). Sosyal Girişimcilik ve Sosyal Girişimciler: Teorik Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(32), 81-95.
Özkan, Ş. (2003). Türkiye de Girişimcilik ve Belirleyiciler: Marmara ve Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 58(04).
Reyhanoğlu, M., & Özden, A. (2012). Ticari Girişimciler Ne Kadar Sosyal Girişimcidir? YÖNETİM: İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(71).
Sarıkaya, M. (2010). Kâr Amacı Gütmeyen Örgütlerde Sosyal Girişimcilik. der. Senem Besler), Sosyal Girişimcilik,(içinde) Beta, İstanbul, 31-52.
UNDP. (2012). " Büyüyen Kapsayıcı Piyasalar “Türkiye’de Sosyal Girişimcilik Vakaları İstanbul: B. Çınar Ed. 1. Baskı ed.).
Villeneuve-Smith, F., & Chung, C. (2013). Social Enterprise UK: The People’s Business. Social Enterprise UK, London.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 194 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
CSR in medical tourism – new markets, new responsibilities
Kerstin Heuwinkel
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes, Germany, [email protected]
Key words: Corporate social responsibility, tourism, medical tourism, sustainability
Introduction
Travelling abroad for medical procedures and care is not a new phenomenon. Although estimates vary widely, Patients Beyond Boarders (2016) calculate a market size of USD 45.5- 72 billion, based on approximately twelve million cross-border patients worldwide. Each of them is spending an average of USD 3,800-6,000 per visit (MTA, 2016). Spending include medically-related costs, cross-border and local transport, inpatient stay and accommodation. Accompanying relatives add to this. The market is still growing and for some countries and regions, e.g. Mexico, Southeast and South Asia, it is said to grow on a rate of 15-25%.
Governments, hospitals, clinics and facilitators go about their business of marketing medical tourism to international patients and their relatives. While they focus on making money, scholars start examining changes raised by the globalisation of healthcare and the impact of medical tourism on destinations (Adams et al., 2013; Cassens, 2013). Which consequences result from the fact that more and more people travel abroad for medical procedures and care? How to guarantee quality and safety for patients? How to avoid negative consequences for the destination and local people? Can it be accepted that countries with a poor medical infrastructure offer special services for international patients only? These and other questions are issues of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
According to the European Commission most definitions refer to corporate social responsibility (CSR) as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 6). This means, that corporations have responsibilities that go beyond economic rents (Font et al., 2012). Ethical, social and environmental issues should be considered voluntarily (Coles et al., 2013). Furthermore, customer involvement and transparency must be added. In contrast to the shareholder value approach needs of all stakeholders should be reflected. CSR can be understood as a paradigm for responsible management and governance addressing the three pillars of sustainability (WSSD, 2002).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 195 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Medical tourism comprises services from the healthcare and from the tourism sector. Key players are hospitals which have become functionally integrated into the tourist industry (Connell, 2013). Thus, typical CSR issues from tourism should be considered.
In order to analyse CSR policies and benchmarks in medical tourism, the following questions must be answered:
- Which relevance does CSR have in relation to medical tourism?
- Which CSR criteria and indicators are relevant for medical tourism?
- Which actors are involved and who is responsible?
- How to address cross-sectoral networks to respect ethical, environmental and socio- cultural issues?
- Can tourism offer role models for CSR strategies in medical tourism?
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section, methods will be described. Then, the term medical tourism will be explained. Ethical, environmental, economic, and social issues will be discussed in the following sections. The paper finally concludes with a discussion of the results and further work.
Methods
As mentioned above the aim of this paper is to analyse CSR activities in medial tourism. In a first step, academic papers, guidelines and case-studies on responsible tourism were used to select criteria and indicators (e.g. GSTC, 2013; Travelife). Then, leading hospitals involved in medical tourism were selected. Bases for this were rankings from institutions and organisations, e.g. Medical Tourism Association, Patients Beyond Borders, Deloitte. The final list covered 10 hospitals (see Table 1). Websites of these hospitals were searched for topics related to CSR. First, content of the homepage and categories were checked for information on CSR. Second, the search engine was used and the terms CSR, responsibility, sustainability, and green were looked up.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 196 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: List of hospitals
BUMRUNGRAD INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL THAILAND
NATIONAL CANCER CENTER Singapore
APOLLO HOSPITAL India
CIMA HOSPITAL Costa Rica
AMERICAN HOSPITAL U.A.E.
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER Philippines
JOHN HOPKINS INTERNATIONAL (international site of U.S. provider)
CLEVELAND CLINIC (international site of U.S. provider)
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH (international site of U.S. provider)
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG- Germany EPPENDORF (UKE)
The approach addresses the question if and how medical tourism providers refer to CSR and not if CSR is really implemented. The latter would require a different approach, e.g. expert interviews and visits to the hospitals. Another reason for this approach is a lack of academic studies in medical tourism CSR. Even the well-established US medical travel market is characterized by weak or non-existent data and sometimes confused by exaggerated expectations (Stackpole & Ziemba, 2016). One reason for this is a missing standardized definition of medical tourism as well as no official data. Terms and definitions
Health tourism includes a wide range of concepts, e.g. medical travel, medical tourism, wellness tourism and even doctor exchange and technology transfer (Fig. 1). All of them combine services from the healthcare and the tourism sector at a varying degree.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 197 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Fig. 1: Health tourism (own illustration based on Heuwinkel, 2015)
In the case of medical travel, healthcare services and medical excellence dominate. The main purpose of travel is seeking medical treatment abroad that is – for different reasons (see next section) – not available in the country of residence. Country of residence refers to the country where people live and not where they were born. That is important, as a high number of medical travellers/tourists are expatriates going “home” for a medical treatment (Connell, 2013). Medical travellers go abroad and stay most of the time in a hospital for medical treatment. Accompanying relatives stay in the hospital, too, or in a hotel nearby. An increasing number of hospitals offer special rooms or apartments for relatives plus a social or cultural program.
Medical tourism comprises healthcare and tourism services on an equal level. Purpose of travel is the combination of medical procedure and a leisure or business trip. Medical tourism comprises two different constellations. First, patients stay only some days in a hospital for the medical procedure and spend the rest of the time that is needed for the follow-up in a hotel nearby, e.g. cosmetic surgery. Second, patients travel to a country for an outpatient treatment, e.g. ophthalmology or dentistry, and stay the whole time in a hotel nearby (Heuwinkel, 2011).
Main players in medical travel and medical tourism are university clinics and large hospitals, e.g. Bumrungrad International Hospital (Thailand), Apollo Hospital (India), and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE (Germany). Special departments and centres organize nearly everything for patients and friends or relatives travelling with them. Services of the centre include language translation, international insurance coordination, international medical coordination, referrals, email correspondence, visa extensions,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 198 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
embassy assistance, airport reception, and travel assistance. Some hotel groups, e.g. ITC Hotels, Taj Medical Group, and travel agencies, have expanded their service line, where they act as a facilitator between the patient and the provider or agencies, which are associated with hotel groups (Deloitte, 2014). Besides private companies like hospitals and hotels, governments are involved in developing medical travel, for instance Taiwan, Philippines, and the City of Seoul. A June 2009 MTA Patient Survey found almost 90% of patients or their companions engaged in tourism activities (MTA, 2016). Thus, the focus of this paper is on medical tourism where medical and tourism activities are integrated.
In contrast to medical travel and medical tourism, wellness tourism products mainly consist of tourism services. People travel to wellness hotels and stay there for different treatments and activities, e.g. Ayurveda and yoga. Main service providers are specialized hotels, which offer in-house wellness or cooperate with wellness institutes.
This paper focusses on medical travel and medical tourism as it is a different form of tourism due to the inter-sectoral cooperation. Main services providers are hospitals. It will be analysed how CSR is addressed in this constellation.
Regarding CSR policies in tourism, there is an increasing interest in this topic. The tourism sector has – similar to other sectors – adopted various codes of conduct in order to establish and promote CSR. The 10 principles of the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism describe how tourism industry should treat employees, people in host countries, as well as natural and cultural heritage (DRV, 2015). Besides the UNWTO Code of Ethics other standards are relevant for tourism, e.g. the ECPAT Tourism Child-Protection Code of Conduct, the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC), and the Tour Operators Initiative (TOI) for Sustainable Tourism Development. Organizations and initiatives such as Futouris, forum anders reisen e.V., DRV Green Counter, and Travelife as well as awards, e.g. EcoTrophea, and Green Key complete the measures. Airlines, hotels, and tour operators have implemented CSR strategies aiming at reconciling economic, environmental, and social issues.
In the next section, CSR issues in medical tourism will be described and examples will be given how hospitals as new actors in tourism address CSR related ethical, environmental, economic, and social issues. The aim is to outline ways of how to implement CSR activities in medical tourism. Ethical issues
Medical travel and medical tourism base upon making business with health. This implies a higher moral responsibility and even more trustful behaviour than normally needed in tourism (Heuwinkel, 2016) as health is a special good (Cohen, 2010, Johnston et al., 2010, Pennings, 2007, Turner, 2007). The healthcare system includes special mechanisms to guarantee this responsibility and to establish trustful relationships. Beginning with the Hippocratic Oath, other examples are institutions such as the ethics commission, social roles and symbols, and certain behaviour such as the obligation to secrecy (Heuwinkel, 2004).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 199 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Still, the reference point for these mechanisms is the local community, people who live nearby.
Different academic publications address ethical questions that are linked with medical tourism (cf. Johnston et al. 2010; Ormond, 2015; Pennings 2007; Turner 2007). Cohen (2010) focuses on the responsibility of a government to offer health services. Cost savings, comparable or better quality care, shorter waiting periods, and moral restrictions are reasons why people are motivated to seek medical treatment abroad (Juszczak, 2007). Instead of pushing the government to improve the situation alternatives (exit-options) are created (Snyder et al., 2012). Sometimes the expression offshoring is used both to criticise and to market medical tourism (TVB Group International, 2016). Lower costs (50-80% difference between India and the US/UK) and the opportunity to easily combine a medical procedure with a leisure or business trip are frequently communicated.
Still, these alternatives are not open for everybody as money and knowledge is needed to seek medical treatment abroad. An average spending of USD 3,800-6,000 per visit and the fact that dental, cosmetic, orthopaedic, and cardiovascular procedures are the mostly sought ones indicate that medical tourism is partly a product for elites (Connell, 2013). According to Snyder et al. (2011) the availability of needed or wanted procedures abroad is used as a justification for leaving the country.
Furthermore, patient rights vary from country to country. Who guarantees for the quality of a medical treatment abroad? If something goes wrong after the patient is home again – does he or she has to go back to the country or is the home country responsible? Normal products and services must be exchanged or repaired by the producing company. A similar constellation can be found in tourism. Insolvency protection reduces risk for travellers and thus increase trust level in the whole industry. If there is a problem during or after a medical procedure abroad, the consumer must work through the country’s legal system. This will be difficult and cost intensive. The fear is that medical tourists face a diminished likelihood and extent of recovery should medical injury result (Cohen, 2010).
Some organisations focus on these problems and try to ensure quality worldwide. The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) is dedicated to protecting the public from false claims, unlicensed practitioners, the use of unapproved procedures or products and outdated equipment and materials. It monitors public information regarding plastic surgery and maintains exacting guidelines and regulations covering important consumer concerns such as advertising, public relations and the media (ISAPS, 2016). ISAPS publishes guidelines for plastic surgery tourists, too.
Patient safety and quality are central concerns of medical travellers and motivation for accreditation. As patient safety is the most important factor in choosing a medical tourism destination the majority of medical tourism providers are accredited (MTA, 2016). The accreditation refers to internal processes, e.g. safe health design, infection prevention and control, multidrug- resistant organism prevention, medications management. The question if a treatment abroad is reasonable is not discussed.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 200 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Besides organisations dedicated to certain procedures, medical tourism service providers provide assistance throughout the whole process and take care of patients’ concerns.
To summarize, ethical issues refer to the changes resulting from the globalisation and commercialisation of healthcare. Leaving the place of residence and going to another country or region is the constitutive element of tourism. Thus, tourism research could be used in order to examine travellers’ expectations, needs, and fears.
Until now, the focus of this paper has been on medical travellers’ “home” context. In the following sections, impact on medical tourism destinations will be examined.
Environmental Issues
In this section, CSR activities related to local and global environmental consequences of medical tourism will be discussed. According to Gössling (2002) the list of environmental consequences is very long. The literature analysis gave evidence that the following CSR activities and areas are already discussed in medical tourism:
- Environmental policies
- Transportation
- Energy
- Water
- Waste
- Spreading of diseases
Hospitals and care systems increasingly are looking for ways to improve efficiency and reduce overall costs. Environmental sustainability is said to be good business because a lot of money can be saved and improve the organization’s public perception (Health Research & Educational Trust, 2014). Environmental policies focus on a formal approach to consider environmental consequences of medical tourism. The University Medical Center Hamburg- Eppendorf UKE (Germany) defined a green agenda aiming to reconcile economic, ecological and social objectives. Bumrungrad International Hospital (Thailand) refers to Environmental Statement Guiding Principles that will minimize negative environmental impact. They do not give further information on how they will do it. Many hospitals face financial and regulatory pressures and environmental sustainability can help pursuing future oriented strategies, e.g. becoming more efficient (Health Research & Educational Trust, 2014). So, the motivation for environmental policies is driven by economic considerations.
Transportation as a central element of medical tourism has a high environmental impact. The percentage of long haul flights is relatively high in medical tourism. Reason for this is that medical traveller countries are US and Central Europe whereas the hot spots for medical tourism are Thailand, Singapore, India, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 201 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
(Deloitte, 2008; Deloitte, 2014). This leads to a high carbon footprint. Linking medical tourism to atmosfair might be an option to compensate negative effects. As some airlines, e.g. Malaysian Airlines and Turkish Airlines, are highly involved in medical tourism strategies they could initiate more responsible travel. Furthermore, on-site transportation should be considered, too. Some large hospitals started projects to reduce on-site high-consumption transportation. These activities do not consider patients’ mobility.
With respect to destinations every tourism activity has an environmental dimension as energy, water and other resources are consumed (Becken et al., 2003). Same comes true for healthcare facilities. The combination of tourism and healthcare leads to high consumption products and services.
To begin with energy, a lot of it is needed for air conditioning and heating. Clinics and hospitals need a stable energy supply. Although renewable energy technologies are used the percentage of fossil fuels is high (EnergieAgentur.NRW, 2015). Temperature inside of hospitals is up to 3°C higher than in houses (Jagnow, Wolff, & Horschler, 2002). On the other hand operating rooms need air conditioning as the temperature should be around 22 °C. Some states and governments already require hospitals to comply with energy-saving programs. Others have mandated energy reductions or adopted green building codes. Other states require hospitals to comply with energy-saving programs to receive a certificate of need. Reducing heating and cooling in unoccupied areas is one possibility to reduce energy consumption. Programs from (luxury) hotels can be used as reference for saving energy without reducing comfort (Mensah, 2006).
Medical tourism relies on water quality and availability to protect patient and guest health. Therefore, hospitals should prioritize water security, water quality and handling wastewater (GSTC, 2013:8). Still, medical tourism is characterized by the large quantity of water that is needed (Tourism Concern, 2012). Water is used to provide needs such as cleaning, cooking, hygiene and gardening. In addition, water is an asset for medical tourist activities. Besides the consumption of water large volumes of waste water are produced. A CSR strategy should include water management in order to monitor water resources (Gösslig et al., 2012). Water conservation can help hospitals save operating costs and energy. Decreasing consumption also provides environmental benefits by decreasing the strain on municipal water supplies and reducing the energy needed to treat and deliver water (Health Research & Educational Trust, 2014). Again tourism offers many examples on how to reduce water consumption and to reduce the amount of waste water.
Additionally, the amount of waste is high in medical tourism. Studies show that tourist waste generation behaviour is different to their typical behaviour at home. They bring a lifestyle based on high level consumption and they expect a variety of food, drinks and other consumables (Coggins, 1994). Besides typical waste generated in tourism, e.g. paper, plastic, glass, medical tourism generates hospital waste. The daily amount of hospital waste is 6 kg per patient per day (BGW 2012, S. 7). Compared to this, 3 kg per guest night all-inclusive is relatively low (RIU, 2015). Furthermore, 20 percent of hospital waste is regulated medical waste and hazardous chemical waste (WHO, 2011). Regulations for clinic waste disposal are
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 202 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
strict in many European Countries and it is expensive to dispose it. In countries with more relaxed regulations costs can be reduced. Hospitals profit from low costs and can offer cheaper services compared to countries with stricter regulations. Still, it has to be monitored that hazardous waste is disposed correctly.
Tourism, on the one hand, is intensive in municipal solid waste generation (MSW) but, on the other hand, could be a source of pressure for improvement in MSW generation and management due to the sensitivity of tourism destinations image on environmental damage (Mateu-Sbert et al., 2013). This fact could be used in order to implement a waste management strategy in medical tourism and to initiate change.
Spreading of diseases is an important issue in tourism in general (Gössling, 2002). What happens if people suffering from a disease travel around the world? How to manage methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) if patients are coming from other countries (Zhou et al. 2014)? According to Snyder et al. (2011) the NDM-1 drug-resistant enzyme is thought to have been spread in part by North American and European medical tourists receiving care in India. Infection prevention and control plus multidrug-resistant organism prevention are important elements of safety and quality improvement strategies offered by accreditation systems, for instance Joint Commission International (see next section).
Finally, some hospitals participate in environmental activities, for instance cleaning up as district. These projects are very often isolated activities aiming at publicity and the question is how to generate long-lasting effects (see Table 2).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 203 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 2: Environmental issues
EXAMPLES HOSPITAL
ENVIRONMENTAL Green UKE University Medical Center POLICIES Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE Environmental Statement Guiding Principles Bumrungrad International
TRANSPORTATION Green traffic and surrounding University Medical Center vicinities Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE
ENERGY CONSUMPTION Building and energy University Medical Center management Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE
WATER MANAGEMENT, “Klong Clean-ups”: The Bumrungrad International SECURITY, QUALITY, activities include cleaning up WASTEWATER litter in water to minimize the pollution and increase the capability of water drainage
SPREADING OF DISEASES Accreditation All 10 hospitals are accredited
Economic issues
Most of the numbers attached to medical tourism are based on estimates and according to Connell (2013) optimistic. The way how the number of international patients is calculated differs, e.g. if wellness tourists are included or not, because a standardised definition of medical tourism is missing. Hospitals sometimes publish data but none of them is verified. This lack has been ascribed to the lack of a domain-specific and statistically sound measurement system (Fetscherin & Stephano, 2016). Ormond et al. (2014:1) remark that “opacity and paucity of available medical tourism statistics severely limits the extent to which medical tourism's impacts can be reliably assessed”.
As a consequence in this paper it will be discussed how the following typical CSR related economic criteria might be applied to medical tourism:
- Economic monitoring / Economic impact
- Job opportunities
- Working conditions / Fair wages
- Access to services for locals
As said before economic monitoring is missing. Surveys of medical tourism are needed in
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 204 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
order to find out about the real number of customers, their spending, activities, and motives. It should be examined if the UNWTO and WHO could elaborate a measurement system for medical tourism.
Some authors are quite optimistic when it comes to the economic impact of medical tourism (Bookman & Bookman, 2007). Furthermore, a lot of investors and companies are interested in setting up hospitals and clinics for international patients. US and European clinics start international cooperation and open clinics or become partners, e.g. Harvard Medical School Centre for Global Health Delivery in Dubai, International Medical Centre in Singapore. Regarding international patients, such cooperation guarantees quality and security.
Same comes true for accreditations, e.g. Joint Commission International (JCI). JCI is an independent, not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies care organizations and programs worldwide. JCI accreditation and certification is recognized as a symbol of quality that reflects an organization’s commitment to meeting certain performance standards. The JCI accreditation process centres on patients’ care and treatment, as well as on the organization’s management and clinical systems. A JCI accreditation costs US $ 52,000 and has to be renewed every third year (JCI 2015). This is a lot of money that might be invested in public healthcare projects. On the other hand it is argued that those accreditations help to guarantee high quality medicine in a country. Furthermore, JCI provides expertise to countries striving to establish national and regional quality and safety standards and country-specific accreditation. It could be interesting to check, if JCI could include CSR criteria in its accreditation process as well.
With respect to CSR this investment should be discussed from the local perspective. Does the local community benefit from the accreditation or is it only needed in order to attract the US-market? How much do people spend when they are in the country? Who benefits from the money? What is the revenue per available room? How much money is invested in local businesses?
Some authors focus on concerns (Snyder et al., 2011; Ormond 2014). Most pressing concerns about the growth of the medical tourism sector are related to the impacts of medical tourism on public health care due to the potential growth of the private sector. If funding and resources are used for medical tourism facilities, deviation of public healthcare funding might be a consequence. For instance, the Malaysian government spends RM20 million (4.3 million Euro) a year to promote and develop medical tourism and wants the private sector to take over this role in the future (IMTJ, 2016).
Another consequence might be brain-drain of medical professionals from the public to the private sector. On the other hand medical tourism is said to offer many job and career opportunities and it may incentivize training of health workers as well. Hospitals emphasize the fact that doctors and medical professionals are internationally-trained. Beladi et al. (2015) argues that an expansion of medical tourism can retain skilled medical professionals at home. In contrast to this positive impact it might happen that expansion of medical
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 205 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
tourism can worsen the under-staffing public healthcare sector in the destination countries due to the outflow of skilled health worker from the public sector to the private medical tourism. Furthermore, it could also lower the wages of unskilled workers.
Regarding employment it has to be monitored how many local jobs are created and how people are paid. According to Reismann (2010) in the United States labour accounts for 55 per cent of total cost in medicine whereas in Thailand it is 18 per cent. Looking at these figures it becomes clear why a hip replacement in Thailand is so much cheaper.
Furthermore, it has to be analysed if the clinics are open to everybody or if only international patients can afford the services. Outbound patients from the U.S. have the option to travel to U.S. providers or their affiliates and partners (Deloitte, 2008). Those patients, the insurance company, and sometimes the employer save money. But it is not clear, if people in the host countries benefit from this as well. Some international hospitals have started offering free treatment for underprivileged people (see next section).
Table 3: Economic issues
EXAMPLES HOSPITAL
JOB OPPORTUNITIES Education, training and Bumrungrad International scholarships for Hospital underprivileged youth./ Community Education
WORKING CONDITIONS / Best Employer Award from Bumrungrad International FAIR WAGES Thailand’s Ministry of Labor Hospital
Family-friendly company University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE (Germany)
ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR See next section LOCALS
Social issues
Social aspects of CSR refer to avoiding exploitation, respecting local communities and cultures as well as commitment to community. Before looking at these aspects the understanding of corporate social responsibility needs further explanation.
The general understanding of CSR in many Asian and African countries highlights the social component of CSR. Ethical and social responsibilities are integral to business (International Hospital Group, n.d.). Thus, local communities are supported to improve the level of general health, wellness, fitness, safety, and security. Other issues are historical preservation and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 206 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
improving cultural understanding. A lot of charities and medical institutions get financial and organizational support. Furthermore, it is important to note, that in many Asian and African countries CSR is linked with anti-corruption and bribery policy.
CSR in sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes community development and poverty alleviation (Mueller-Hirth, 2016). Many CSR projects are primarily built around agriculture, tourism, trade and finances (GIZ, 2013). Due to the fact that tourism and especially medical tourism (very often cosmetic surgery) are evolving markets, CSR-strategies could be integrated into the concepts right from the beginning.
Avoiding exploitation should be an important topic in medical tourism. To begin with lower costs of living, lower wages and lower costs for energy, water and waste are reasons for lower prices in many countries. Western countries unintentionally “exploit” these differences. In contrast to this, surrogacy and organ trade are examples for calculated exploitation. According to the WHO (2004) organ trafficking and transplantation pose new challenges. The lack or insufficiency of a legal framework or enforcing mechanism in some countries has been highlighted especially by the media. However, governments recently have been taking steps to curtail the international organ trade which may change their respective situations (WHO, 2007).
Corporate social responsibility includes the respect for local communities and cultures. Social and cultural differences should be considered when offering medical services. First, sensitising to social and cultural as well as gender requirements improves doctor-patient communication. If a culture requires particular diet, habits, practices, the provider should offer those. Interpreters, separate kitchens, prayer areas and priests should be available. Same comes true for providing female physicians to examine female patients if the culture requires this. Second, requirements of doctors, nurses and other employees should be considered. Thus, a female nurse should not be forced to take care of a male patient if her culture does not allow this. Tourism might contribute to the topic as intercultural competence is an essential skill in tourism. Nowadays, most of the hospitals have established departments or offices for international patients aiming at facilitating intercultural encounters. Furthermore, training sessions and workshops to sensitise employees should be offered. Job profiles have started to change because hospitality skills are needed in medical tourism. Tourism industry could participate in this process and share its expertise in training and education.
Many hospitals address social issues via commitment to community. Charity events are very popular and address either a special issue, e.g. cancer, or the wellbeing in general. These charity events attract media attention and can improve the image of the hospital. In order to boost CSR in Thailand, the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand (AMCHAM) honours its members’ corporate social responsibility programs (AMCHAM, 2015). Bumrungrad Hospital was awarded for its programs, e.g. heart surgeries for underprivileged children.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 207 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 4: Social issues
EXAMPLES HOSPITAL
AVOID EXPLOITATION Governments initiatives based on WHO resolution
RESPECT LOCAL Department or office for Most of the hospitals COMMUNITIES AND international patients CULTURES Intercultural seminars for employees
COMMITMENT TO Heart surgeries for Bumrungrad International COMMUNITY AND underprivileged children. Hospital CULTURE Free or low-cost treatments to St. Luke’s indigent patients, free medical missions in different provinces
Many charity events, e.g. run for hope, for research, National Cancer Center education and needy patients
Conclusions
To summarize, medical tourism includes CSR related questions that refer to the “home” as well as to the host country. Key actors are hospitals, governments and cooperating hotels, airlines and travel agencies.
The analysis of the websites gave evidence that corporate social responsibility as a strategy to reconcile economic, environmental and social issues is not implemented in medical tourism. Hospitals have become functionally integrated into the tourist industry. They are linked to hotels, airlines, and tour operators. The tourism industry seems to be afraid of actively participating in this industry (Connell, 2012). This is a pity because leading hotel chains such as Marriott and ITC Hotels implemented a CSR strategy and could be a model for medical tourism.
Because patients save a lot of money, it should be discussed, if and how much of these saving should be invested in CSR projects. This means that not only companies but consumers and clients are integrated into CSR. Although changing the mind set of tourists and patients will not be easy, it is crucial in order to change the situation and to force companies to change the way they do business. Future work in the study of CSR in medical tourism should examine the different issues more detailed. A prerequisite for this is reliable and valid data.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 208 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Adams, K. et al. (2013) Promoting social responsibility amongst health care users: medical tourists’ perspectives on an information sheet regarding ethical concerns in medical tourism. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2013 8:19
AMCHAM (2015). AMCHAM Thailand recognizes top corporate social responsibility programs. Online source. Retrieved from: https://www.amchamthailand.com/asp/ view_doc.asp?DocCID=4980
Becken, S., D. G. Simmons, and C. Frampton (2003). Energy use associated with different travel choices. Tourism Management 24: 267–277.
Beladi, H. et al. (2015). Medical tourism and health worker migration in developing countries. Economic Modelling, 46 (2015) 391-396.
BGW (2012) Abfallentsorgung – Informationen zur sicheren Entsorgung von Abfällen im Gesundheitsdienst. Hamburg
Blomme, R., van Rheede, A., Tromp, D. (2010). Work-family conflict as a cause for turnover intentions in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 10, 4, 269–285
Bookman, M., Bookman, K. (2007). Medical Tourism in Developing Countries. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
Cassens M (2013) Gesundheitstourismus und touristische Destinationsentwicklung. München: Oldenbourg
Coggins, P.C. (1994). Reduce and recycle at home, at work, and at play: perspectives on waste management and travel and tourism. J. Waste Manage. Resour. Recov. 1 (4), 1–10.
Cohen G (2010) Protecting Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism and the Patient- Protective Argument. Medical Tourism and the Patient Protective-Argument (June 9, 2010). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 5, 2010; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 10-08.
Coles T, Fenclova E, Dinan C (2013) Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives 6. S. 122 - 144
Commission of the European Communities (2001). Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Online source. Retrieved from: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-9_en.pdf
Connell, J. (2013). Contemporary medical tourism: Conceptualisation, culture and commodification. Tourism Management 34 (2013) 1e13
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 209 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Deloitte (2008). Medical Tourism. Consumers in Search of Value. Online source. Retrieved from: www.deloitte.com
Deloitte (2014). Global health care outlook. Shared challenges, shared opportunities. Online source. Retrieved from: www.deloitte.com
DRV (2015) UNWTO-Ethikkodex. Online source. Retrieved from: www.drv.de/ fachthemen/nachhaltigkeit/unwto-ethikkodex.html.
EnergieAgentur.NRW (2015) Energieeffizienz in Krankenhäusern. Retrieved from: http://www.energieagentur.nrw.de/
Fetscherin, M., & Stephano, R. (2016). The medical tourism index: Scale development and validation. Tourism Management 52 (2016) 539e556
FUR Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen (2014). Abschlussbericht zu dem Forschungsvorhaben: Nachfrage für Nachhaltigen Tourismus im Rahmen der Reiseanalyse. Kiel
GIZ (2013). Shaping Corporate Social Responsibility in sub-Saharan Africa. Online source. Retrieved from: www.giz.de
Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change 12: 283–302.
Gössling, S., Peeter, P., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J., Dubois, G., Lehmann, L.V. and Scott, D. (2012). Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management 33: 1–15.
GSTC Global Sustainable Tourism Council (2013). Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D) version 1.0 November 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.gstcouncil.org/sustainable-tourism-gstc-criteria/criteria-for- destinations.html.
Health Research & Educational Trust (2014). Environmental sustainability in hospitals: The value of efficiency. Chicago, IL: Health Research & Educational Trust. Accessed atwww.hpoe.org
Heuwinkel, K. (2004). Zwischen Heinzelmann und Frankenstein - Ansatz zur Etablierung Digitaler Begleiter als moderne Vertraute des Menschen. Dissertation Düsseldorf
Heuwinkel K (2011) Reisen der Gesundheit zuliebe. Saarbrücken: VDM-Verlag
Heuwinkel K (2015) Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement – ein neuer Baustein des Gesundheitstourismus oder vice versa? tw Zeitschrift für Tourismuswissenschaft (Lucius & Lucius) tw Jg. 7 (2015) Heft 1, S. 169-191
Heuwinkel, K. (2016). Vertrauensmanagement im M-Tourismus: Möglichkeiten und
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 210 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Grenzen. DGT Schriftenreihe Band 20. „Tourismus und Freizeit“ im ESV-Verlag
IMTJ International Medical Tourism Journal (2016). Record year for Malaysia medical tourism. Retrieved from: http://www.imtj.com/news/record-year-malaysia- medical-tourism/
International Hospitals Group (n.d.). Corporate Social Responsibility. Online source. Retrieved from: http://www.ihg.co.uk/corporate-social-responsibility.html.
ISAPS International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (2016). Guidelines for Plastic Surgery Tourists. Retrieved from: Guidelines for Plastic Surgery Tourists
Jagnow, K. / Wolff, D. / Horschler, S. (2002). Die neue Energieeinsparverordnung 2002. Köln: Dt. Wirtschaftsdienst 2002
JCI Joint Commission International (2015) Viewbook. Online source. Retrieved from: www.jointcommissioninternational.org/about-jci/what-sets-us-apart/
Johnston R, Crooks VA, Snyder J, Kingsbury P (2010) What Is Known About the Effects of Medical Tourism in Destination and Departure Countries? A Scoping Review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 9, 24–36
Juszczak, J. (2007). Internationale Patienten in deutschen Kliniken: Ansätze zur Vermarktung von Gesundheitsdienstleistungen im Ausland. Schriftenreihe des Fachbereiches Wirtschaftswissenschaften. St. Augustin. Bd. 8.
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism Annals of Tourism Research 48. 76-95
Mateu-Sbert, J., Ricci-Cabello, I., Villalonga-Olives, E., Cabeza-Irigoyen, E. (2013). The impact of tourism on municipal solid waste generation: The case of Menorca Island (Spain) Waste Management 33 (2013) 2589–2593
MTA Medical Tourism Association (2016). Research, Surveys, Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.medicaltourismassociation.com/en/research-and-surveys.html
Mueller-Hirth, N. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Development in South Africa: Socio-economic Contexts and Contemporary Issues. In: Vertigans, S. (eds.). Corporate Social Responsibility in Sub-Saharan Africa, Springer International Publishing
Ormond, M.; Wong KM., Chee, KC (2014). Medical tourism in Malaysia: how can we better identify and manage its advantages and disadvantages? Glob Health Action 2014, 7: 25201.
Ormond, M. (2015). Solidarity by demand? Exit and voice in international medical travel - The case of Indonesia. Social Science & Medicine 124 (2015) 305 - 312
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 211 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Pennings G (2007) Ethics Without Boundaries: Medical Tourism. In: Ashcroft R, Dawson A, Draper H, McMillan J (Hrsg.) Principles of Health Care Ethics. 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Reisman, D. (2010). Health Tourism: Social Welfare through International Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Snyder, J., Crooks, V., & Johnston, R. (2011). Perceptions of the Ethics of Medical Tourism: Comparing Patient and Academic Perspectives. Public Health Ethics Advance.
Snyder J., Crooks V., Johnston, R., & Kingsbury, P. (2012): Beyond sun, sand & stitches: assigning responsibility for the harms of medical tourism. Bioethics 2012, 7:233– 242.
Stackpole, I., Ziemba, E. (2016). The USA outbound medical travel market: Report overview. Online source: Retrieved from: imtj.com
Tourism Concern (2012). Water equity in tourism. Online resource. Retrieved from: https://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/water-equity-in-tourism/
Turner, L. (2007) First World Health Care at Third World Prices: Globalization, Bioethics and Medical Tourism. BioSocieties, 2, 303–325.
TVB Group International (2016). Offshore quality medical tourism. Retrieved from: http://offshorequalitymedicaltourism.com/about_us.php
WHO World Health Organisation (2004). Organ trafficking and transplantation pose new challenges. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/9/feature0904/en/
WHO World Health Organisation (2007). The state of the international organ trade: a provisional picture based on integration of available information
WHO World Health Organization. (2011). Waste from health-care activities. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs253/en/
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Online source. Retrieved from: www.joburg.org.za/pdfs/johannesburgdeclaration.pdf
Zhou, Y., Wilder-Smith, A., Hsu, L. (2014). The Role of International Travel in the Spread of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Travel Medicine. Volume 21 (Issue4): 272-281
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 212 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The moderating role of values in planned behaviour: the case of tourism SMEs managers' intention to implement CSR measures
Lluís Garay* & Xavier Font^ & August Francesc Corrons°
* Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain, [email protected]
^ Leeds Becket University, United Kingdom, [email protected]
° Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain, [email protected]
Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility, Values, Attitudes, Conductual Intentions
Introduction
In the past five years, we (a group of researchers from the Leeds Becket University and the Open University of Catalonia) have been working on different studies about the CSR motivations, barriers and practices in tourism small and medium enterprises (SMEs) from different countries and regions. We first surveyed nearly 400 owner/managers (Garay & Font, 2012) and found that the main reason for acting responsibly was altruistic, although competitiveness reasons were also important. Aspects of the “resource-based view” of the firm were validated through the positive impact of environmental cost-savings in financial performance, but also because other practices (not always related with economic reasons) were influencing their competitiveness. The article concluded that further implementation of these practices was necessary to achieve the full potential of competitive advantages.
We then surveyed around 900 owner/managers to show that SMEs were more involved in taking responsibility for being sustainable than previously expected, including eco-savings related operational practices but also reporting a wide range of social and economic responsibility actions (Font, Garay, & Jones, 2014). Two-step cluster analysis was used to group the firms in three groups based on their motivations to be sustainable. Business driven firms implemented primarily eco-savings activities and were commercially oriented. Legitimization driven firms responded to perceived stakeholder pressure and reported a broad spectrum of activities. Lifestyle and value driven firms reported the greatest number of environmental, social and economic activities. No profile had a higher business performance than average. The study had implications for policy programmes promoting sustainability behaviour change based primarily on a business case argument.
We then sought to go deeper into the psychology of these owner/managers and used Social-Cognitive Theory to test the argument that the motivations behind sustainable tourism, and the types of sustainable actions undertaken, depend on one’s empathy
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 213 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
towards sustainability (Font, Garay, & Jones, 2016). Nearly 2,000 owner/managers were surveyed about their motivations for acting sustainably and any sustainability actions undertaken. We found that acceptance of responsibility to be more sustainable depended on one’s level of empathy with, and attachment to, sustainability, explained by a beneficiary focus (personal norms that drive one to act to help oneself or others) and a cultural focus (acting in response to individualistic or collectivistic social norms). Lifestyle businesses was argued to be culturally individualistic but self-transcendent in benefit focus.
Our previous research has only partly contributed to explaining the reasons for sustainability behaviour. Hence our objective is to expand the focus by investigating the values, attitudes and conductual intentions that lead tourism SMEs’ managers and/or owners to introduce CSR measures, and whether there is any relationship between these aspects and financial results, which in itself is an unresolved issue because not enough research has been conducted to understand the mechanisms to trigger financial success from CSR (Pereira-Moliner et al., 2015). To achieve this objective we shall analyse the value- attitude-behaviour chain with regard to responsible behaviour of SMEs’ owner/managers. This theoretical model has been confirmed as valid in diverse contexts by different scholars (Zhou, Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013) and has been constructed from two generic (and well-known) theories: The Basic Values Theory (TBV) (Schwartz, 2012) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 2011).
Regarding the TBV, Schwartz defined values as “trans-situational goals that vary in importance and serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or a group.” In TBV, Values form a circular motivational continuum, in which adjacent values on the circle are compatible, have similar motivational meanings, and can be pursued simultaneously through the same behaviour. In contrast, opposite values on the circle express conflicting motivations. This values circle was originally divided into 10 discrete values: universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Schwartz further proposed grouping these values into four higher-order values, the four sectors of the value circle, which form two bipolar dimensions. The first dimension contrasts self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence) with self- enhancement values (power and achievement). The second dimension contrasts openness to change values (stimulation and self-direction) with conservation values (tradition, conformity, and security). Hedonism, which has proven to explain much of the consumer behaviour towards sustainability (Malone, McCabe, & Smith, 2014), is located between the openness to change and self-enhancement dimensions.
Based on the TPB, a specific behaviour is assumed to develop in three stages: First, personal beliefs affect the attitude toward the behaviour (AB), subjective norm concerning the behaviour (SN), and the perceived behavioural control (PBC). Second, these three variables determine the strength of the intention to perform the behaviour (BI), and finally, when an opportunity to act occurs. And third, behaviour happens if the strength of the intention and the amount of actual control (AC) are sufficiently favourable. Finally, regarding the relationship between values, attitudes and behaviours, according to the TPB, a person’s values influence the weight of specific behavioural outcomes when forming an attitude
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 214 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
towards the behaviour.
Method
To validate or refuse our model and future hypotheses, we’ll use structural equation modelling to explain the value-attitude-behaviour chain. We shall use Schwartz’s Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ), a well-established values measurement instrument translated into several languages and applied cross-culturally. For the measurement of TPB constructs, scales will be developed based on the model questionnaire proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (2011). Attitudes towards implementing CSR measures will be measured by means of diverse items, reflecting cognitive as well as affective evaluations. Expected results and Contribution to research
The conference paper shall present the theoretical model in which our primary research will be based, and justify what it adds to the current understanding of the sustainability behaviour-value gap by understanding the relation between values, attitudes and conductual intentions that lead tourism SMEs’ owner/managers to introduce CSR measures. In particular, we aim to find out relationships between these aspects and financial results.
Our initial hypotheses suggest that self-transcendence and openness-to-change dimensions should be related with lifestyle and altruistic profiles detected in our previous studies, that were more proactive in introducing CSR measures and that also had some positive impacts in their businesses’ financial performance. With this analysis we shall understand more critically the values that guide attitudes and intentions related with CSR implementation, which will be especially useful in providing training for SMEs in the future.
References
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychology & health, 26(9), 1113-1127.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach: Taylor & Francis.
Font, X., Garay, L., & Jones, S. (2014). Sustainability motivations and practices in small tourism enterprises in European protected areas. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Font, X., Garay, L., & Jones, S. (2016). A Social Cognitive Theory of sustainability empathy. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 65-80.
Garay, L., & Font, X. (2012). Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 329-337.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 215 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Malone, S., McCabe, S., & Smith, A. P. (2014). The role of hedonism in ethical tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 241-254.
Pereira-Moliner, J., Font, X., Molina-Azorín , J. F., Lopez-Gamero, M. D., Tarí, J. J., & Pertusa- Ortega, E. (2015). The Holy Grail: Environmental management, competitive advantage and business performance in the Spanish hotel industry. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 27(5), 714 – 738.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
Zhou, Y., Thøgersen, J., Ruan, Y., & Huang, G. (2013). The moderating role of human values in planned behavior: the case of Chinese consumers' intention to buy organic food. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(4), 335-344.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 216 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Can Tourism Businesses Foster Better Inclusion for People with Visual Impairment?
Kristof Tomej
MODUL University Vienna, Austria, [email protected]
Key words: social enterprise, social inclusion, visual impairment, accessible tourism
Abstract
It is difficult to deny that despite its increased popularity, the concept of social entrepreneurship has not received a clearer understanding in a theoretical context. Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009) list 20 definitions of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs given by various authors. A recurring theme in the majority of these definitions is the “mission of the social entrepreneur […] of creating social value by providing solutions to social problems” (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011, p. 1204). Measuring this value as part of performance reporting and audit is becoming a particularly important task for social enterprises (Nicholls, 2009), be it for the purpose of external accountability, decision making within the organization or assessment of the impact of its activities (Mulgan, 2010). Measurement of social value or social wealth is, however, a difficult task. Firstly, products and services of social enterprises are often non-quantifiable, which complicates the assessment of their impacts. Secondly, social value itself is rather subjective and depends on the context (Zahra et al., 2009).
Although there have been attempts to produce social value measurements within the framework of welfare economics, they have been found to be inadequate in situations where there are no comparable services or products on the market, in other words situations of “market failures”, where many social enterprises operate (Nicholls, 2009). For more long-term social value, qualitative approaches have been applied, particularly in the field of publicly funded organizations, such as museums (Scott, 2003). The broad variety of social enterprises and the services they provide led to a range of field-specific assessments and metrics that lack comparability (Mulgan, 2010), but could be more suitable to specific contexts.
The study described further is taking a closer look at a specific group of tourism organizations that offer travel products for people with various forms of visual impairment as well as sighted people, thus providing an inclusive travel experience. Although these organizations vary in their model – ranging from non-for-profits to for-profit businesses – they all can be described as social enterprises, as they follow both economic and social goals (Zahra et al., 2009). This study will measure the impacts of participation in inclusive holiday
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 217 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
experiences on the inclusion of people with visual impairment into the society. On the one hand, this will allow answering the question whether tourism products can foster social inclusion for people with disabilities. On the other hand, the measurement can illustrate the social value that the studied organizations produce in the form of impacts on inclusion.
Literature review
Social inclusion of people with disabilities has been having a high priority on the agenda of many governments and international organizations, including the World Health Organization (Clifton, Repper, Banks, & Remnant, 2013; Kastenholz, Eusébio, & Figueiredo, 2015; Martin & Cobigo, 2011). It is often being described as a phenomenon opposite to social exclusion, a construct related to the so-called social model of disability. The latter one acknowledges the social construction of disability, it stipulates that it is the physical, cultural and social environments, instead of individual impairments, that cause exclusion, and consequently inclusion is a matter of social justice (Bruce, Harrow, & Obolenskaya, 2007). Broadly speaking, social inclusion means the removal of social, emotional and sensorial barriers to participation in various life domains as an equal citizen (Coombs, Nicholas, & Pirkis, 2013; Kastenholz et al., 2015).
Social inclusion has two dimensions – objective and subjective. The objective dimension (or objective element) is related to the participation of the individual in different life domains, while the subjective dimension covers the person’s satisfaction with his/her own experience and life (Coombs et al., 2013). In many ways, such structure of social inclusion has a substantial overlap with some Quality of Life measures that combine both objective and subjective (e.g. subjective well-being measures) indicators (Costanza et al., 2007). Accordingly, social inclusion can be measured by the assessment of the number and quality of “including interactions” of an individual (objective element) and/or by the individual’s own assessment of personal inclusion (subjective element)(Bruce et al., 2007, p. 70). As noted by Martin and Cobigo (2011), objective measures, such as number of personal relationships, frequency of access to community resources, number of leisure activities engaged in outside of home, are used more often in studies on social inclusion.
There are strong ties between tourism, disability and social exclusion/inclusion. As noted by Aitchison (2007), together with sports and leisure, tourism has become a key marker of “economic, social and cultural capital formation” (p. 78) shaping identities of disability (among other things), thus having its role in “marking” differences between people or “making” a differences in their inclusion. Some researchers go as far as saying that the leisure and tourism industry “has the greatest potential to contribute to social sustainability because its services can enhance the quality of life of individuals in many ways” (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010, p. 520). Moscardo (2009) also found that tourism can have positive influence over some aspects of Quality of Life, particularly social capital and social networks – resources strongly relevant for social inclusion.
Over the last decade, there has been a growing amount of research on participation of people with disabilities in tourism (Kastenholz et al., 2015). A substantial contribution has
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 218 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
been done in the area of accessible tourism (see Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues 2011). Although scholars of accessible tourism also embrace the social model of disability (Darcy & Buhalis, 2011), studies in this direction are still often limited to the notion of access – either physical (in transport or accommodation facilities) or access to information. The social aspect of integration and inclusion for people with disabilities has been generally omitted in tourism research. Furthermore, research on inclusion in general often limits its scope to the “excluded minority” only, without a consideration of the “excluding majority”, although some promising findings have been presented in a field adjacent to tourism, namely sport.
In recent years, a phenomenon known as “reverse integration” that consists in able-bodied sportsmen participating in wheelchair sports, particularly basketball and handball, has become more widespread and caught the attention of various researchers. Medland and Ellis‐Hill (2008) found that some sportsmen with disability believe that participation of able- bodied sportsmen increases the media coverage of wheelchair sports, as well as raises the society’s awareness, which potentially may “contribute to the breaking of existing prejudices and discrimination” (p. 116). A study by Evans, Bright, and Brown (2015) has shown that participation of able-bodied school children in wheelchair basketball led to at least a short-term positive effect on their understanding and perception of disability.
Similarly to “reverse integration” in sports, inclusive tourism products also offer an opportunity for able-bodied people to get a better understanding of travelling with disabilities, while travellers with disability can benefit from a more inclusive environment formed by the mixed group of participants. The educational function of tourism is an axiom, yet the question remains whether a tourist experience can have an effect on the social inclusion.
As research on visual impairment and tourism is still scarce, given the dominating “visual” paradigm of tourism studies (Richards, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2010), the described study aims at exploring the effect of tourist experiences shared by people with visual impairment and normal sight on the social barriers of inclusion of people with visual impairment. Method
In order to test the impact of inclusive holiday experiences and to measure this impact, the study is intended to follow a “one-group pretest-posttest” (without control) quasi- experimental design (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). The measurement of effects will be conducted in a form of online questionnaires. Two different questionnaires will be distributed among people who booked an inclusive holiday – one survey for people with normal sight and another one for people with visual impairment. People with normal sight will be asked questions about previous experiences with visual impairment and people with visual impairment, as well as attitudes towards both. The questionnaire will be based on the internationally validated Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1994) and the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) (Yuker, 1970). People with visual impairment will be provided a questionnaire exploring the social capital of participants
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 219 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
(number and quality of social interactions), as well as their subjective well-being in relation to inclusion (self-esteem and social interaction skills). Some of the questionnaire items will be generated from results of telephone interviews conducted with past inclusive holiday participants. The same variables will be measured during the pre- and posttest. The pretest measurement will be carried out before the holiday taking place, while the posttest measurement will be taken after the holiday. A follow-up measurement will be conducted after a period of 6 months following the holiday.
Participants of the study will be recruited through organizations offering inclusive holiday packages. Four organizations in Germany, the UK, and the USA – were contacted and requested to disseminate the online questionnaire to all of their customers before commencing and after completing a holiday, as well as in 6 months following the trip. The proportion of participants with and without visual impairment will depend on the composition of the groups during data collection, while the sampling frame will be bound by the total number of tourists going for inclusive holidays during the time period.
Although quasi-experimental designs are weak in discovering causal effects and are characterized by validity threats, the pretest measurement as well as the relatively short time between the pre- and posttests should bring the threats related to maturity to a minimum (Shadish et al., 2002). Expected results
The results of the study are expected to provide an insight into the effects that inclusive tourism products can have on social inclusion of people with visual impairment. A significant change in the variables measured in the study will be a sign of existence of such effects, while the magnitude and direction of these changes will provide more detailed understanding of these effects. The magnitude of impacts can also be seen as a proxy for the level of social value produced by the organizations. The measurement framework used in the study can be incorporated to the performance audit used by the organizations themselves. Its results then can be used to guide internal decision making, but also to inform other stakeholders about the social impact of the organization’s activities. Limitations
The number of tourism organizations offering and marketing inclusive tourism products for people with visual impairment is very small, which results in a small number of people having such experiences. Consequently, this leads to a very limited number of expected study participants, which corresponds to a potentially low level of power in statistical analysis of the effects. Furthermore, the quasi-experimental design without control groups has an increased threat of internal validity due to history (Shadish et al., 2002): as there is no control group, it is almost impossible to account for other factors affecting the result, including the mere tourist destination experience. At the same time, repeated measurements help to limit the effects on internal validity, while the study itself can provide a firm starting point for more in-depth analyses of emerging effects.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 220 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues. (2011). (D. Buhalis & S. Darcy Eds.). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Aitchison, C. C. (2007). Marking difference or making a difference: Constructing places, policies and knowledge of inclusion, exclusion and social justice in leisure, sport and tourism. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 77-90). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bruce, I., Harrow, J., & Obolenskaya, P. (2007). Blind and partially sighted people’s perceptions of their inclusion by family and friends. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 25(1), 68-85.
Clifton, A., Repper, J., Banks, D., & Remnant, J. (2013). Co‐producing social inclusion: the structure/agency conundrum. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 20(6), 514-524.
Coombs, T., Nicholas, A., & Pirkis, J. (2013). A review of social inclusion measures. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(10), 906-919.
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., . . . Farley, J. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well- being. Ecological economics, 61(2), 267-276.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization science, 22(5), 1203-1213.
Darcy, S., & Buhalis, D. (2011). Introduction: from disabled tourists to accessible tourism. In D. Buhalis & S. Darcy (Eds.), Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues (pp. 1-20). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010). Accessible tourism and sustainability: a discussion and case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515-537.
Evans, A. B., Bright, J. L., & Brown, L. (2015). Non-disabled secondary school children's lived experiences of a wheelchair basketball programme delivered in the East of England. Sport, Education and Society, 20(6), 741-761.
Gething, L. (1994). The interaction with disabled persons scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(5), 23.
Kastenholz, E., Eusébio, C., & Figueiredo, E. (2015). Contributions of tourism to social inclusion of persons with disability. Disability & Society, 30(8), 1259-1281.
Martin, L., & Cobigo, V. (2011). Definitions matter in understanding social inclusion. Journal
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 221 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 8(4), 276-282.
Medland, J., & Ellis‐Hill, C. (2008). Why do able‐bodied people take part in wheelchair sports? Disability & Society, 23(2), 107-116.
Moscardo, G. (2009). Tourism and quality of life: Towards a more critical approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 159-170.
Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Soc Innov Rev, 8(3), 38-43.
Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’:‘Blended Value Accounting’in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, organizations and society, 34(6), 755-769.
Richards, V., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2010). (Re) Envisioning tourism and visual impairment. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1097-1116.
Scott, C. (2003). Measuring social value. In R. Sandell (Ed.), Museums, Society, Inequality (pp. 41-55). London: Routledge.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Small, J., Darcy, S., & Packer, T. (2012). The embodied tourist experiences of people with vision impairment: Management implications beyond the visual gaze. Tourism Management, 33(4), 941-950.
Yuker, H. E. (1970). The Measurement of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of business venturing, 24(5), 519-532.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 222 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Adoption and diffusion of sustainability in tourism and nature-based family firms: drivers and outcomes
Johanna Zanon* & Andreas Kallmuenzer^ & William Nikolakis° & Mike Petersꜙ
*University of Innsbruck, Austria, [email protected]
^University of Innsbruck, Austria, [email protected]
°University of British Columbia, Canada, [email protected]
ꜙUniversity of Innsbruck, Austria, [email protected]
Key words: sustainability, ecological, family firms, tourism, Canada, Austria
Introduction
This study explores why family firms adopt social and ecological policies that go beyond regulations, which includes hard (e.g., law; Berrone et al., 2010) or soft (e.g., certificates; Rivera, 2002) regulations. To accomplish this, the study inspects family firms involved in sectors with great importance of hard and soft regulations. Industries where these regulations are of great importance include close-to-nature sectors such as natural resources (forestry, agriculture) but also the tourism sector. We investigate these industries in Austria in a first, initial study, which will be extended to Canada, Australia, and Japan and potential other countries in future projects. There are differences between these sectors, including the importance of social licence, as well as there are differences in regulation and law, and differences in industry structure. Further differences are expected to result from sustainability preferences and initiatives in regional and cultural contexts (Busch et al., 2005). However, controlling for differences between these jurisdictions and policies, the different contexts allow us to explore for patterns in results with confidence that it is not just cultural or socio-legal influences driving adoption and diffusion of ecological and social policies. Finally, we hope to develop a deeper understanding on what guides family firms to adopt social and ecological policies that go beyond regulation. Theoretical Background / Aim
The adoption and diffusion of social and ecological polices primarily refers to the concept of sustainability. Sustainability can be defined as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43) and comprises issues regarding social, economic and environmental protection. While family firms in general are more likely to incorporate
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 223 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
responsibility factors due to their long lasting and transgenerational nature (Berrone et al., 2012), many companies include responsibility policies because of increased internal and external pressure (e.g., management, government, market, consumer) to develop sustainable business practices (Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Sharma, 2000).
Due to the increasing focus on sustainability issues, governments already tighten and raise mandatory industry specific environmental standards (hard regulations) especially in close- to-nature firms. In the last decade, a shift from governmental regulations to companies providing green certifications and labels (soft regulations) is observed (Busch et al. 2005), allowing sustainable companies to voluntarily move from hard to soft regulations. These eco labels aim to encourage mainly environmental standards of products and services as well as environmental-friendly consumption patterns (Zarrilli et al., 1997). Current developments show that the adoption of eco labels and hence soft regulations not only spurs economic sustainability in terms of profitability, but also improves the social and environmental performance of an organization (e.g., Rice & Ward, 1996, Rivera, 2002). To further ease validity among discerning stakeholders, an increase in rigor of regulations over time seems adequate (Searle, 2004). Moreover, the increasing awareness of consumers on environmental concerns motivates firms to exceed environmental considerations and expectations (Craig & Dibrell, 2006). Hence, this study is interested in motivators that drive owner/managers of family firms to adopt and diffuse ecological as well as social policies that move beyond hard and even soft regulations, considering the family as a key factor influencing this responsiveness.
In the seminal work of Bansal and Roth (2000) they observe that the ecological responsiveness of firms is difficult to predict. This is because there are a number of potential motivators that are difficult to distinguish between, including regulatory compliance, market drivers such as competition or non-state market driven mechanisms, that includes socially responsible investors and certification mechanisms (Cashore, 2002), public relations and greenwashing (Laufer, 2002) and values, norms and altruistic behaviour (Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; Papagiannakis & Lioukas, 2012). Firms may be proactive in adopting ecological and social standards (Sharma & Sharma, 2011) or reactive (Sharma & Henriques, 2005).
Although drivers and motivations of environmental strategies have been dominant in prior research, the role of family firm characteristics and its influences on these strategies has been a rather young field of research (Berrone et al, 2010; Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Sharma & Sharma, 2011) despite the fact that around 80% of all businesses worldwide are family led firms (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2003). Therefore, the proposed study focuses on family firms and what drives them to adopt environmental and social policies.
We expect family dynamics such as long-lasting, transgenerational and social attachment to regions and their embeddedness within close-to-nature industries and societies to have a significant influence on the perception and importance of policies (Berrone et al., 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). These peculiar family dynamics are incorporated in the socio- emotional-wealth (SEW) approach which argues for family firm members to feel as socially
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 224 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
responsible, long-lived corporate citizens aiming at achieving social recognition (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Dyer & Whetten, 2006). The SEW construct considers the goals of family control and successional thinking (Berrone et al., 2012; Kellermanns et al., 2012) but also the “identification of family members with the firm, binding social ties, emotional attachment of family members, and renewal of family bonds to the firm” (Berrone et al., 2012, p. 259). We hypothesize that these family dynamics primarily raise the importance of social and ecological policies to family firms due to a high awareness of social, regional and familial responsibility (Peters & Kallmuenzer, 2015). These within-family dynamics differentiates family firms’ sustainable motivations and decision-making significantly from non-family companies. Also, it can be assumed that firms within close-to-nature industries seem to have a high ecological awareness due to stronger governmental regulations and policies (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Craig & Dibrell, 2006). Those companies are also reported to follow more holistic sustainable strategies leading to decisions with long-term considerations (Craig & Dibrell, 2006; Delams & Gergaud, 2014). This long-term orientation does not only foster environmental responsiveness, it moreover is also a viable sign towards social responsiveness (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Thus, next to ecological considerations the extent to which companies adopt or exceed social policies is a second focus of the proposed study.
Together with ecological and social responsibility comes the role of economical aspects. On the one hand, prior research shows that high ecological responsiveness simultaneously leads to higher profitability (Craig & Dibrell, 2006; IISD, 1996; Rice & Ward, 1996). On the other hand, scholars found that family firms with transgenerational intention are more concerned about long-term financial goals than short-term outcomes (Delmas & Gergaud, 2014). This implies to include economical values as a third pillar in the given study. In using economical, social as well as economical aspects this study allows to define and gain deeper understanding of family firm priorities and their driving forces to implement and exceed policies.
Method
In order to gain insights into the phenomena of family business adoption and diffusion of sustainability a study with a qualitative approach (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014; Yin, 2003) is conducted: Family firms in Austria are contacted and with the help of an interview guideline (Kruse, 2010), narrative interviews are conducted to derive patterns of family business behaviour. This analysis highlights patterns of intended sustainable orientation and behaviour. As a consequence of this procedure, it is possible to form certain clusters of family businesses, who differ in their configuration and motivation of entrepreneurial and sustainable behaviour.
Twenty narrative interviews are carried out with two family members of two generations in each firm to cover the attitudes of different age groups (De Massis et al., 2014; Papagiannakis & Lioukas, 2012). Each interview is digitally recorded and manually transcribed into MS Word. For the qualitative data analysis and coding of data content, analysis software (NVivo 11) is used. The data analysis and the content analysis are based on
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 225 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the data retrieved in German language. Ensuring quality and credibility of this transcription and translation process and the accuracy of the quotations, two researchers fluent in German and English, as well as a professional language editor have to consult during the translation process (De Massis & Kotlar, 2014; Reay, 2014). Besides the narrative character of the interview, which stresses the past development and future development plans of the family firm, a structured interview guideline focuses on measuring and reflecting ‘hard’ facts regarding ownership situation, legal composition and key performance indicators. Expected Results / Conclusion / Limitations
We expect sustainability preferences to be influenced by family specific dynamics as well as regional and cultural peculiarities. The given context allows us to gain deeper insights in the business behaviour of family firms with regards to ecological and social responsibility. With the help of the interviews, we are able to propose drivers and outcomes of ecological and social policies. Finally, we are able to get a deeper understanding of what guides family firms to grow in a sustainable way.
We also expect deeper insights into the phenomena from the interviews about the relevance of SEW and its importance for family business’ growth patterns (Berrone et al., 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). As a result of this study, we can state whether the discussed family dynamics raise the importance of social and ecological policies to family firms due to a higher awareness of social, regional and familial responsibility. Therefore, the project also is of interdisciplinary nature and combines social sciences disciplines in order to better understand family firms’ regional embeddedness.
Finally, the findings of this study may be helpful for non-family firms as those seek to simulate familial ties and relationships (Delmas & Gergaud, 2014). Thus, our study not only extends our knowledge of sustainability preferences in family firms, but also allows for developing practical initiatives and policy strategies on managing and improving firms’ sustainability behaviour.
Due to the qualitative approach of this study, we are not able to generalize our findings. However, we are able to develop propositions for testing our findings in future studies with a more quantitative approach. In addition, this initial study refers to a national context. Hence, we are targeting to extend our research to a multinational context in future projects, as described in the introduction of this paper.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 226 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Angelidis, J., and Ibrahim, N. (2004). An exploratory study of the impact of degree of religiousness upon an individual's corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 119-128.
Bansal, P., and Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., and Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82-113.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., and Gómez-Mejía, L.R. (2012). Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms: Theoretical Dimensions, Assessment Approaches, and Agenda for Future Research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258-279.
Busch, P., Joergens, H., and Tews, K. (2005). The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Instruments: The Making of a New International Environmental Regime. Annals of the American Academy, 598, 146-166
Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non- state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503-529.
Craig, J. B., and Dibrell, C. (2006). The natural environment, innovation and firm performance: a comparative study. Family Business Review, 19(4), 275-288
Deephouse, D. L., and Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do Family Firms Have Better Reputations Than Non‐Family Firms? An Integration of Socioemotional Wealth and Social Identity Theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337-360.
Delmas, M. A., and Gergaud, O. (2014). Sustainable Certification for Future Generations: The Case of Family Business. Family Business Review, 27(3), 228-243.
De Massis, A., Chirico, F., Kotlar, J., and Naldi, L. (2014). “The Temporal Evolution of Proactiveness in Family Firms: The Horizontal S-Curve Hypothesis,” Family Business Review 27(1), 35–50.
De Massis, A., and Kotlar, J. (2014). “The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship,” Journal of Family Business Strategy 5(1), 15– 29.
Dyer, W. G., and Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(6), 785-802.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 227 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106- 137.
IISD 1996. Global Green Standards: ISO 14000 and Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., and Zellweger, T. M. (2012). Extending the Socioemotional Wealth Perspective: A Look at the Dark Side. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(6), 1175-1182.
Kruse, J. (2010). Reader "Einführung in die Qualitative Interviewforschung". Freiburg.
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253-261.
Papagiannakis, G., and Lioukas, S. (2012). Values, attitudes and perceptions of managers as predictors of corporate environmental responsiveness. Journal of Environmental Management, 100, 41-51.
Peters, M., and Kallmuenzer, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the case of the hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, online first
Reay, T. (2014). “Publishing Qualitative Research,” Family Business Review 27(2), 95–102.
Rice, R., and Ward, J. (1996). Coffee, conservation and commerce in the western hemisphere: How individuals and institutions can promote ecologically sound farming and forest management in northern Latin America. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Washington, D.C.
Rivera, J. (2002). Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: the Costa Rican certification for sustainable tourism. Policy Sciences 35, 333-360.
Searle, B., Colby, S. J., and Milway, K. S. (2004). Moving Eco-Certification Mainstream. The Bridgespan Group.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697
Sharma, S., and Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159.
Sharma, P., and Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(02), 309-334.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 228 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zarrilli, S., Jha, V., and Vossenaar, R. (1997). Eco-labelling and International Trade. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 229 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Reaching the hard to reach: CSR and employee engagement in tourism
Kelsy Hejjas* &Caroline Scarles^ &Graham Miller°
*University of Surrey, England [email protected]
^University of Surrey, England [email protected]
°University of Surrey, [email protected]
Key words: Engagement; CSR; Organizational Resistance; Human Factors; Tourism
Introduction
As the duties and behaviour of organizations within the tourism industry evolve to accommodate expectations of pro-sustainable business change, so too does the role and responsibility of employees within these organisations. As key actors in facilitating pro- sustainable behaviour change, it becomes increasingly important to explore employee understanding and engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Carrying the main burden of responsibility for implementing responsible corporate behaviour, the success of CSR initiatives is largely dependent on employee support and willingness to collaborate (Collier and Esteban, 2007). Furthermore, in addition to directly impacting the sustainability implementation process, employee engagement in CSR practices is linked to a number of organizational benefits including improved employee performance (Larson et al., 2008); commitment (Rupp et al., 2006; Brammer et al., 2007); and employee-company identification and fit (Berger et al., 2006; Collier and Esteban, 2007; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008). Thus, employee engagement and CSR hold the potential to influence the outcome of an organisation’s sustainability agenda as well as positively impact the financial bottom line.
Aim
While the relationship between CSR and employee engagement is being increasingly explored (see for example, Mirvis, 2012; Costas and Kärreman, 2013; Ferreira and Real de Oliveira, 2014). A lack of attention has been paid to individual levels of analysis and actual employee participation in CSR, with employee engagement in CSR programs remaining one of the largest knowledge gaps within the CSR literature (Panagopoulos et al., 2011). As such, this research critiques employee engagement in corporate social responsibility initiatives by exploring differences in engagement amongst individual employees and identifying factors
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 230 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
that contribute to engagement in CSR as well as barriers faced by hard-to-reach employees who are disengaged from organizational CSR efforts.
Method
This research has been designed as a qualitative research study in order to effectively explore employees’ lived experiences participating in CSR. For this purpose, three multinational companies from different sectors of the industry, including both a hospitality organization and two tour operators, were chosen as case studies. The choice of the case to be studied is determined by the research question and the availability and accessibility of potential data (Yin, 2009); in this case, organizations were selected based on their recognized efforts towards pro-sustainable behaviour change, as well as for their existing relationships with the research team.
Data was collected using 55 semi-structured interviews across a range of employee groups including employees engaged in organizational CSR efforts, employees disengaged from organizational CSR efforts, CSR champions, and organization managers, as well as a range of industry professionals involved in CSR. Interviews were arranged by a member of each organization’s CSR team with interviewees self-nominated following the distribution of a communications message outlining the research and the need for participants. In the case of disengaged employees, the most difficult group to identify, snowball sampling was discussed but ultimately discarded in order to avoid the ‘naming and shaming’ of disengaged employees. These individuals were all ultimately self-nominated as disengaged from CSR, either through lack of participation in a single intervention or an overall disinterest in CSR in the workplace. Interviewees were questioned about their understanding of and experience participating in organizational CSR efforts, addressing key topics of communication, leadership, and intervention design. The results were subsequently examined using qualitative data analysis techniques, specifically thematic analysis using inductive coding.
Interestingly, what was initially viewed as an opportunity for organizational improvement was increasingly met with organizational politics. Despite initial enthusiasm to participate in the study, resistance arose around data collection, particularly with access to disengaged employees. Some difficulty in data collection was simply unavoidable with organizational restructuring occurring during the collection period, as well as conflicting schedules and time limitations. However, elsewhere resistance appeared more deliberate; despite attempts to interview a range of employees across the organizations, some gatekeepers arranged interviews with only those employees who were closely related to and heavily engaged in CSR practices. Further, several disengaged employees were employees that were only disengaged
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 231 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
from CSR initiatives due to job structure (ex. part time or home based employee) or time limitations, rather than being actively disengaged from corporate responsibility.
Findings
While preliminary results of this investigation suggest a number of key opportunities and barriers to employee engagement in CSR, they also critique issues of disengagement at both the employee and corporate level. It has become increasingly clear that the human aspect of sustainability implementation extends well beyond employee participation, touching upon broader issues of corporate disengagement, organizational resistance, and change management. By drawing on the experience of a range of industry professionals outside of the case study organizations, the focus of the research has subsequently been extended to learn more about issues of disengagement at both the corporate and employee level. This research therefore presents findings that question the importance of addressing organisational disengagement as well as that of individual employees.
Conclusions and Limitations
The implications of this research are twofold. In terms of practical advancements, this research contributes to the effective implementation of CSR interventions within organizations by identifying both individual employee and organizational factors that either limit or facilitate the adoption of responsible behaviour. Academically, this study addresses existing gaps within the literature, namely a lack of research at micro levels of analysis (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012) by exploring the relationship between individual employees and CSR interventions. Further, it addresses a lack of research concerning employee engagement and corporate social responsibility in tourism and hospitality, which as an industry characteristically lags behind other more established disciplines (Hsu, 2005).
However, the research design brings along with it some limitations. Firstly, findings rely on the perceptions of interviewees who were approached and selected by management, which inherently influences the type of individual interviewed. Further, due to the potentially sensitive nature of disengagement and the promotion of responsible behaviour as a key organizational value for the chosen case study companies, interviewee responses are subject to pressures of corporate culture, a desire to protect brand image, and concerns of anonymity. In order to address these concerns case study organizations as well as respondents were given anonymity. In addition, the individual layout of the interviews is conductive to establishing close rapport between the interviewer and the respondent, which is of particular importance when enquiring about sensitive subjects. In order to further triangulate and validate findings, we have drawn on sources across the industry but external to the case study companies.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 232 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012) What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda.Journal of Management, 38(4), 932- 968.
Berger, I., Cunningham, P., and Drumwright, M. (2006). Identity, Identification, and Relationship through Social Alliances. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 128-137.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. (2007). The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719.
Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics, 16(1), 19-33.
Costas, J. and Kärreman, D. (2013). Conscience as control - managing employees through CSR. Organization, 20(3), 394-415.
Ferreira, P. and Real de Oliveira, E. (2014). Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 232-247.
Hsu, C.H.C. (2005) Global Tourism Higher Education: Past, present, and future. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Larson, B.V., Flaherty, K.E., Zablah, A.R., Brown, T.J., and Wiener, J. (2008). Linking Cause- Related Marketing to Sales Force Responses and Performance in a Direct Selling Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing and Science, 36(2), 271-277.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee Engagement in CSR: Transactional, Relational, and Developmental Approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93-117.
Panagopoulos, N.G., Rapp, A., and Vlachos, P.A. (2011). Corporate Social Performance and Employees: Construed Perceptions, Attributions and Behavioural Outcomes. Attributions and Behavioural Outcomes (November 22, 2011).
Rodrigo, P. and Arenas, D. (2008). Do Employees Care about CSR Programs? A Typology of Employees According to their Attitudes, Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265-283.
Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, V. and Williams, C.A. (2006). Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organisational Justice Framework, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 27(4), 537-543.
Yin, R.K. (2009).Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4thedn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 233 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 234 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
A study of innovation in the making CARMACAL and the Dutch outbound travel industry
Harald Buijtendijk* & Jorine Vermeer^ & Juultje Blom °
*NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands [email protected]
^NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands [email protected]
°NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences & Wageningen University, The Netherlands [email protected]
Key words: CSR, innovation process, value, actor-network theory.
Introduction
How to reduce carbon emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation? For years, the carbon-intensive travel industry has been struggling with this question. Research has addressed the relation between climate change and tourism (e.g., Gössling et al 2015; Becken, 2013; Gössling, 2010; Gössling et al 2010; Bows et al, 2009). Their work produced models and measurement methods, and recommended mitigation policies and actions (Scott, 2011; Dwyer et al, 2010; Gössling et al 2010; McKercher, 2010). Major industry players have since adopted carbon reduction measures in their CSR policies (Thomas Cook group, 2015; TUI Group, 2015). However, the bulk of the travel industry consists of SMEs that typically have limited resources available for CSR. CARMACAL may offer a solution for the sector at large. CARMACAL is a user-friendly application that enables tour operators to accurately measure the complete carbon footprint of their tour packages and integrate carbon management in their business (CSTT, 2016a). The industry acknowledged its relevance: in April 2016 CARMACAL won the WTTC Tourism for Tomorrow Innovation Award.
Yet, CARMACAL is just an element in a complex process of innovation in the making. Indeed, at its very core CARMACAL is a piece of technology, the outcome of a network stitched together by the people and organizations enrolled in the project that developed it. CARMACAL is their collective invention; a hybrid collection of human and non-human elements, a network of people and things. It is the product of researchers and software engineers that connected databases, obtained licenses, invented algorithms, and developed interfaces, and –while this work was in full progress- enrolled a wide range of people and organizations in this collective endeavour. The result? When users enter numbers, select options and click ok, CARMACAL will produce figures, percentages and graphs. But what is
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 235 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the value of this invention, apart from a sense of pride evoked by great achievement? Only when the inventors succeed in enrolling customers, suppliers, staff, and investors in their network to collectively translate these readings into actions, value is mobilized. Only then, their invention becomes innovation.
This innovation process resembles “a fate played out in accordance with a mysterious script”, held together by a collection of confusing and diverse decisions made by a considerable number of different and at times conflicting actors that are unable to assess the value of their decisions at the moment they make them (Akrich et al, 2002a, p. 188). Hence innovation is the result of this chaotic ordering process: an outcome that appears in front of its observers as black boxes: elements taken for granted as an integrated part of daily reality. Therefore, to understand this process of innovation in the making, observers should analyse innovation in its environment (ibid), and examine how relational practices of actors are ordered into relatively stabilized networks (Jóhannesson et al, 2012).
Several scholars in tourism and management research have called for empirical studies at micro level that show how innovation works (Wirtz et al, 2015; Mustak, 2014; Camisón and Momfort mir, 2012; Hjalager, 2010). Some argued such work should clarify the role of CSR in innovation (Kudlak and Low, 2015; Glavas and Aguinis, 2012). We addressed this research gap and analysed innovation in the making, using a study of CARMACAL. We looked how – through a process of linking people, organizations, ideas, technologies, data, and resources over time- CARMACAL was constructed. In addition, we examined how this process has (not) affected the ways in which participating tour operators mobilize value.
Literature review
Any innovation process is a quest to mobilize new sources of value. Innovation entails “the art of interesting an increased number of allies who will make you stronger and stronger” (Akrich et al (2002a, p. 205, italics added). Early literature indeed portrayed innovation as a human affair: the actions of the risk-taking figure of the entrepreneur on his quest for novelty were considered the prime source of value. Once pioneering becomes established practice, this innovator is removed through a process of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942; 1934). Management literature has expanded ever since and replaced him with the notion of the firm. Amit and Zott (2001) reviewed several theoretical domains of the management literature and portrayed the firm as the omnipresent mobilizer of value. Transaction cost economics sees value as the result of the firm’s efficient transactions. Porter’s value chain framework locates it in the firm’s value chains and claims value is mobilized through its strategic policies. The resource-based view holds that value resides in the firm’s resources, while the dynamic capabilities approach puts it in the firms’ internal processes and suggests value is mobilized when linked to opportunities. Yet, none of these domains questions the notion of the firm itself: it has become a black box par excellence. Rather than self-evident beings equipped with the power to mobilize value independent from others, Ren et al (2012) argue entities like firms are performed. We follow Paget et al (2010) and view the firm as a construct, the outcome of a constant ordering process performed in a network of managers, staff, customers, suppliers, competitors, shareholders,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 236 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
technologies, and capital. It is held together by transaction mechanisms, contracts, and collections of at times conflicting ideas, and collectively assembles, distributes, and trades products and services. It activates value when it includes tangible user benefits and stabilizes over time.
Business models delineate how business creates, distributes and captures value from technological innovation (Teece, 2010), and thus resemble a map of the network’s architecture. The concept has been well reviewed in management literature (Wirtz et al, 2016; Zott et al, 2011; Shafer et al, 2005). Da Silva and Trkman (2014) argued business models explain how innovation projects that deal with technology foreign to prevailing industry logic would benefit the firm. Those benefits may include sustained value (Achtenhagen et al, 2013), increase of profit and growth (Chesbrough, 2010), monetization of novel technology (Wirtz et al, 2010), and new ways to deliver products and value to customers (Markides, 2006). Baden-Fuller and Haefliger (2013) argue that a business model is a model: a node in the network that represents a copy of things (a miniature of reality) and things to be copied (an illustration of the ideal case). It resembles Van der Duim’s (2007) network calculus; ““a more or less explicit framework of interconnected concepts with which to read the relevant empirical reality and translate it into new actions” (p. 970). A key ordering process of innovation is therefore the enrolment of new technology in this framework.
CSR links new beneficiaries to business. These actors may be human, non-human, or hybrids (i.e. communities, governments, charities, and the environment). Value is mobilized once these beneficiaries have stabilized their network, and benefits are performed. CSR has become an integrated part of management literature. Various handbooks and edited volumes discussed the concept; see for instance Tolhurst and Pohl (2012); Henningfeld et al (2012); Ihlen et al (2011); Blowfield and Murray (2008), and Crane et al (2008). CSR should be viewed in the context of evolving political discourses about the role of business in society. During Cold War years, Western Governments advanced business as the proponent of free market capitalism in attempts to counter Soviet Communism (Spector, 2008). Questioning the nature of corporate practices served no political purpose; first and foremost, business was meant to be business; Friedman’s (1970) free agent that focused value mobilization exclusively on maximizing shareholder profit. Academic debates on CSR were predominantly US centered, and revolved around definitional issues and ideas about ethical leadership of the corporation (for a review see Carroll, 1999). While neoliberalism eroded state power after the Cold War, the CSR construct got increasingly entangled with sustainable development discourse (see Carroll, 2008; 1999). Business now had to serve voluntary philanthropy as side dish. This implied balancing its value mobilization process; business was to pursue growth while voluntary addressing its impacts on society to avoid state intervention (Coles et al, 2013). Porter and Kramer (2006) considered this balancing act counterproductive, as it disconnected strategy from social responsibility. Nevertheless, CSR research revolved around stakeholder management along dimensions that correspond with the triple bottom line of sustainable development (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Carroll, 2008; Dahlsrud, 2006). Also it extensively explored whether this balancing act had a
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 237 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
business case (Carrol and Shabana, 2010). Since the 2008 financial crisis global business has witnessed little organic growth. While facing increased stakeholder pressure to address social and environmental challenges states alone cannot solve, the question whether business is capable of creating genuine impact remains unanswered (Kudlak and Law, 2015). To achieve this, business needs to transform its value mobilization process, and become an agent of change that creates shared or sustainable value: social and environmental benefits that result in increased shareholder value (Mirvis et al 2016; Porter and Kramer 2011; Hart and Millstein, 2003). Yet, the question remains how such innovation is realized.
Within these parameters this paper addresses two knowledge gaps. First, several scholars have called for empirical studies at micro level that show how innovation works. Such work should look at the development of relationships and trust in service innovation networks (Mustak, 2014), the role of CSR in stimulating innovations and addressing the environmental crisis (Kudlak and Low, 2015), underlying mechanisms of CSR at the micro level (Glavas and Aguinis, 2012), and the relationships that constitute business models (Wirtz et al, 2015; Baden-Fuller and Morgan, 2010). In tourism research Hlajager (2010) called for research to look into innovation processes of tourism enterprises, and Camisón and Momfort mir (2012) suggested more empirical work on innovation and technology diffusion in tourism. Akrich et al (2002a) argued such case studies should avoid the trap of retrospective explanation. Observers should avoid “edifying stories which retrospectively invoke the absence of demand, technical difficulties or inhibitory costs.” Such stories may be true, but this truth is controversial as it is “blindly created by the story” (p. 190). Understanding innovation therefore requires observers to challenge these “discourses of accusation” (Akrich et al, 2002a; 2002b, p.224), and reconstruct the perspectives, actions, arguments, and decisions of those involved in the process as innovation unfolds, in the context of the moment. Second, Tourism research has studied innovation (e.g., Hjalager, 2015; Brooker and Joppe, 2014; Rodríguez et al, 2014; Camisón and Momfort mir, 2012; Paget et al, 2010; Hjalager, 2010), and looked at CSR (e.g., Font et al, 2016; Wells et al, 2016; 2015; Lee et al, 2013; Sandve and Øgaard, 2013; Font et al, 2012; and Schwartz et al, 2008). However, the bulk of this work has treated these concepts separately: little tourism research has explored interrelations between both concepts. This work answers their calls by addressing aforementioned knowledge gaps and providing a predominantly qualitative case study of a CSR-driven innovation process in which technology diffusion takes centre stage. Methods
Little empirical research at micro level analysed how innovation works. Also limited tourism research examined the interrelations between CSR and innovation. Therefore, this study aims to analyse how innovation works by providing an empirical account of an ongoing CSR- driven innovation process. In the specific setting of the Dutch outbound travel industry, we illustrate how CARMACAL was constructed and its implications for the value mobilization process of tour operators. The study draws from qualitative data collected in two thesis research projects (table 1). In total 21 semi-structured interviews with CARMACAL project partners were conducted (table 2). All interviews have been transcribed verbatim and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 238 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
analysed using open and themed coding (table 3). This study had two limitations. As it involved an analysis of innovation in progress, the subject matter was highly dynamic at the time of the interviews. Second, interviews have been transcribed in Dutch. Quotes from the data have been translated in English. Possibly this affected the connotation of the message.
Table 1. Thesis research projects
Thesis Topic
Blom, J. (2016). Eco-efficiency in tour operating. An analysis of the Eco-efficiency, application of the eco-efficiency ratio on selected trips and its carbon implications for decision-making. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis. NHTV management, tour Breda University of Applied Sciences & Wageningen University. Breda operators, CSR. and Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Vermeer, J. (2016). From Invention to innovation? A case study of Innovation, carbon CARMACAL. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis. NHTV University of management, tour Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands. operators, CSR.
Table 2. Respondents
Respondent Position Organization Date interview Duration interview
R1 Director Tour operator 02-03-2016 53 min. (SME)
R2 Director Tour operator 09-03-2016 32 min. (SME)
R3 Sustainable tourism Tour operator 10-03-2016 17 min. coordinator
R4 Travel expert Tour operator 15-03-2016 22 min. (SME)
R5 Director Tour operator 17-03-2016 N/A (SME)
R6 Manager marketing Tour operator 16-03-2016 30 min. & sales (SME)
R7 Sustainability Tour operator 21-03-2016 N/A coordinator (SME)
R8 Product manager Tour operator 22-03-2016 31 min (SME)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 239 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
R9 Manager tour Tour operator 23-03-2016 N/A operating (SME)
R10 Director 14-03-2016 26 min
R11 Sustainable tourism Tour operator 30-04-2016 41 min coordinator
R12 Junior Carbon Consultancy 25-03-2016 35 min Advisor agency
R13 Manager Certification 01-04-2016 N/A program
R14 Researcher Research and 24-02-2016 39 min knowledge institute
R15 Researcher Research and 25-02-2016 30 min knowledge institute
R16 Manager Industry 18-03-2016 53 min association
R17 Product manager Tour operator 09-05-2016 29 min
R18 Sustainable tourism Tour operator 10-05-2016 19 min coordinator
R19 Product manager Tour operator 13-05-2016 22 min
R20 Product manager Tour operator 13-05-2016 31 min
R21 Product manager Tour operator 24-05-2016 28 min
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 240 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 3 Themes & codes
No Theme Description
1 The construction of Drivers CARMACAL Perspective of creators
Current actions and strategies
Cost/benefit perspectives
Technical improvements
Perceived conditions for future success (excl. label)
2 The social-technological Compatibility with tour operating practices struggle Hold strategies and externalization
3 The absence of the customer Perspectives on customers
Perspectives on social responsibilities
Concern effects of label on business
Strategic purposes
Context
The carbon footprint of Dutch holidaymakers is considerable. With 17.9 million holidays in 2014, The Netherlands represents a major international leisure travel market. 11 million holidays involved plane travel (including 2.5 million long haul return flights). 7.1 million trips concerned package holidays (NBTC, 2014). For decades, the approximately 3400 tour operators and travel agents that constitute the Dutch outbound travel industry have supplied this market (Reiswerk, 2016). They have built their market positions by reselling travel services in exchange for a fee through de facto information monopolies. At present, this business model is under pressure. Recent ICT developments increased market transparency, empowered consumers, and facilitated new entrants with web-based business models.
The Dutch Association of Travel Agents and Tour Operators (ANVR) represent approximately 180 tour operators and travel agents in the Netherlands (CSTT, 2016b). It commissioned a range of studies that analysed the innovation challenges of the industry (ANVR and Capgemini, 2015; Beulink et al 2012; Nijboer and Goedegebure, 2012). All studies emphasized the importance of sustainability, and the ANVR has claimed sustainability supports innovation (Reiswerk, 2015). Yet, integration tendencies in the international travel
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 241 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
industry seem to confine rather than encourage such innovations (Hjalager, 2010). Although front running tour operators and the ANVR have been actively engaged in CSR for some time (van de Mosselaer et al, 2012), this involvement resulted in limited business innovation. CARMACAL may bridge this gap.
CARMACAL is the outcome of the CARMATOP project, funded under the RAAK-SME program by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. The RAAK-SME program (Regional Attention for Knowledge Circulation) subsidizes two-year innovation projects in which Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences create new knowledge through research in collaboration with a SME consortium in a specific sector. This research should be demand driven, i.e. based on concrete needs of participating SMEs. NHTV’s Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport Studies led this project, in collaboration with HZ University, and expert partners ANVR, ECEAT and Climate Neutral Group.
Sixteen tour operators participated in the project: most of them are considered CSR frontrunners in the Dutch travel industry (ANVR, 2016; CSTT, 2016b; 2016c). CARMATOP contained three work packages: research into carbon calculators and consumer research into carbon footprint communication on tour packages (I), development and testing of the ICT tool (II), and research into carbon management, develop and test carbon management strategies, and preliminary research into a possible carbon label for tour packages (III) (CSTT, 2016b). CARMATOP ran from 2013 to 2015. At present, tour operators and other interested organizations can purchase annual user licenses from the recently established Carbon Management Travel and Tourism foundation (CSTT, 2016a). Results
The following sections present the results of the interviews and correspond with the themes presented in table 3.
1. The construction of CARMACAL
CARMACAL resembles a network that got constructed through the coincidental blending of two different ideas about emission reductions: carbon management and carbon labelling. The first idea started in 2010 when a tour operator approached CSTT with this question; “to decide whether it makes sense for us to start compensating our tours in the future, I need to know the carbon footprint of our tours. Can you map this for us?”(R2). The following two years CSTT did two projects with this company. In the first project researchers invented a formula that enabled basic calculation of the carbon footprint of the company’s long haul group tours.
In the second, they assessed how the company could reduce its carbon footprint without affecting the customers’ holiday experience; “this was easy; offer customers direct flights whenever possible” (R2). Both projects concerned carbon management: a B2B activity that aids business to reduce emissions through informed adjustments of its operations. During
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 242 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the Dutch Holiday Exhibition in January 2012, the tour operator shared her experience in a meeting with other tour operators. It picked up collective interest. Some present in the meeting were excited about a presentation by professor Stefan Gössling they had attended just before. Gössling had talked positively about carbon labelling; “his story about labelling was really inspiring, how important labelling is to get the sustainability movement going” (R1). Gössling’s suggestion may have been prophetic, for the promise of labelling mobilized industry collaboration; if everybody starts his own label, we risk ending up with 36 different labels. Why don’t we make it an industry-wide initiative? We started a project group and involved others. NHTV joined, as well as GreenSeat. And this is how CARMACAL started” (R1). This is how carbon management got entangled with carbon labelling: a B2C activity that aids business to achieve emission reductions by enticing customers to alter their purchase behaviour.
While both concepts share emission reduction, each entails fundamentally different ideas about who should take responsibility and change behaviour: business or customers? However, both require accurate measurement of emissions. The project group needed a single application to consistently measure the carbon footprint of tour packages, and turned to the RAAK-SME program for funding support, which resulted in the CARMATOP project.
To secure funding, a project proposal had to be constructed that demonstrated the project included new knowledge development (carbon measurement techniques), application (carbon management by means of an ICT tool), and relevance for industry and higher education (a consortium of universities, tour operators and branch organizations). Informed by the RAAK-SME funding requirements, CARMATOP became the ordering process that linked carbon management and carbon labelling. CARMATOP afforded influence to the experts of CSTT, who had to create the calculator; “we had particular ideas regarding research, which we could implement in CARMATOP, while also addressing their questions regarding the label. So it was a combination of both. But I do think it was our initiative. More so since sitting down, thinking, and writing the RAAK proposal required an enormous amount of time and you cannot ask tour operators to lead that process” (R15). Their rationale for CARMATOP was carbon management; “our intention with this project was that tour operators would start working with it internally, the name is not without reason carbon management” (R15). But it was the idea of the carbon label that enrolled tour operators in the network and established the consortium; “without the label tour operators cannot come up with a reason to work with CARMACAL” (R1). The creators put it into CARMATOP, but ordered as separate work package. Unlike the tool, the label was not something that had to be built, only researched. While it was not their initial intention, the creators had enrolled the carbon label in the network and made it part of CARMACAL’s purpose. After completion of CARMATOP not the project but the tool itself had to hold the network together. Over a period of a year, only eight licenses had been sold (R14). “As it is now it will not have a future” (R2). While those involved enrolled in CARMACAL for different reasons (table 4), all agreed that expansion of the tool’s user base was essential. “To keep this system going, we need more participants” (R14). They proposed a variety of strategies (table 5) that illustrate
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 243 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
how the existence of the device as well as the uncertainty of its future triggered networks configurations. These will determine whether the network will hold, or fall apart.
Table 4: Personal drivers & rationales
Drivers Quotes
Take “You may say, why are you making all these efforts, yes well, I think it is a responsibility sort of basic responsibility. That is my feeling about it” (R1) for one’s impacts “We know it is a polluting industry… “it is very important that this development will come, as we have to reduce our footprints, therefore something needs to change” (R2)
Do their part “Leave the world behind in good condition” (R1) to contribute to “I want to make the world a bit better” (R2) sustainability “To help the world, let’s say for a better planet” (R6)
“The preservation of the planet as a whole…And we are not the only ones, who can go and save the planet, but if everybody contributes their part, we will come a long way”. (R11)
Secure the “We find nature in a tour package very important and we want to future of the conserve this” (R4) business and the industry “If a Dutch tourist, making a long distance journey to discover new things, will act irresponsibly in all those beautiful places, these places will disappear in five years and we won’t have any places to visit anymore. We would kill our own business” (R9)
“Our idea behind it is that when you neglect your destination, or the planet, than you will not have business anymore. You will not be able to offer the holidays that you for instance offered 50 years ago” (R11)
Acknowledge “People are getting more aware of the fact that something needs to consumers are happen, and of climate change” (R10) getting aware of climate “There is more attention for climate change, and people start noticing it is change important, it only still needs to be transformed in customer behavior” (R12)
Increase “Now it is just done, all those discussions on different companies to credibility and compensate with, different amounts customers have to pay, well this is transparency the start that at least everybody uses the same calculator” (R1) towards “We want to be very transparent on this, that people can see how it
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 244 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
customers actually works” (R2)
“It is unjustifiable to cooperate with the CARMATOP project and say at one point that you will keep working with your own five regions system, because that was exactly the thing we were struggling with, if all the different CO2 compensation programs keep doing their own thing, using their own methods, the compensation of emissions will not gain credibility towards the customers” (R16)
Stay ahead of “The government will start setting targets, there are already agreements government to reduce the CO2 emissions as a country, and companies will play a regulations significant role in this” (R2).
“It is unavoidable” (R8; R10)
Increase “With some companies, who really go green, I think you can create a sort employee of loyalty among employees by implementing sustainable practices such loyalty as CARMACAL. These companies already have employees who find it important of course” (R14).
Table 5: Strategies
Strategy Quotes
Attract larger funds to To keep CARMACAL running we need a party that will finance continue it as a project the project” (R16).
Attract international “CARMACAL needs to try and obtain larger funds, and so attention to obtain larger international attention would be beneficial” (R1) funds
Scale up by selling more “A sales department for CARMACAL, who inform other tour licenses to tour operators operators on the current situation and who really try to sell it” (R5).
Develop and launch the “As soon as the label is ready, tour operators will start using label to attract more tour CARMACAL. Because as soon as companies like SNP or TUI put operators the label on their website, others will start using it as well... The label will help tour operators differentiate their business from the competition” (R12).
Integrate CARMACAL in “One of the criteria of becoming Travelife certified should be that you have a carbon management policy that consists of the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 245 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Travelife carbon calculator and a presentation of this carbon footprint on the website” (R1)
2. The social-technological struggle
Tour operators operate tours for profit. The product manager is the key operator and takes centre stage. The job is supply rather than market driven; “90% of the time it is a continuation of the previous year. We are not going to start all over every year and invent the wheel again, we have an existing product supply and we’re building upon that in the years thereafter” (R17). Products cannot just be dropped: this depends on price and contract conditions (R17). Also there is business; “You’re in a commercial company, profit always comes first” (R19). Portfolio decisions are mainly based on sales and profit of the previous year (R17, R19, R20, R21). Carbon emissions are only discussed when asked. Such factors are included as criteria in certifications, but have never been a decisive factor regarding the portfolio (R5, R9, R17, R19, R20, R21).
While there is intention to make CARMACAL happen, “that it will be normal to work with and people should stop seeing it at as a sort of side dish, it should start belonging to the business” (R3, R4), there is little action. Some deploy hold strategies and first want to learn from the experiences of early-adopters, others struggle with implementation (R9) or made it the business of interns; “look interns, you just cannot expect them to know a lot about tour packages, so you have to check it afterwards. But okay, for the basics it is fine, yes” (R8). This makes it complicated to get staff involved in carbon management; “it should become part of the process, that a product manager has to work with it, because that person needs to start thinking, oh, okay, I will make a new tour, let me see how this looks in relation to carbon management” (R2).
The slow pace of adoption frustrates the creators of the tool; “it is just too bad, as this project was meant to improve the offer of tour operators… Why would they not seriously set targets for themselves? Like: yes I will try to improve it with 3 % each year per tour or in total, regardless how they want to do it. Because for that you can use the tool perfectly of course, as it will show you which tours have high amounts of carbon emissions. And then you can communicate to the customers” (R14).
This illustrates what happens when a new piece of technology reaches the work floor. Not the thing but its novelty will challenge the dominant practices and procedures established over time. And naturally, this raises both support and resistance of those performing them. It is exactly these clashes that embody innovation in the making. Through these processes of ordering the link between carbon management and tour operating practice is negotiated and strategies are constructed. As such, CARMACAL illustrates the reworking of social- technological relations that constitute the practice of tour operating.
At its core tour, operating is about the passion to turn beautiful places one knows well into memorable experiences for others. And product managers resemble the human directories
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 246 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
that make this possible: some know their product well, better than CARMACAL; “when you have a beautiful hike from A to B to C to D in Mallorca and you find a hotel at exactly 18 kilometers in a fantastic village, you will take that one, whether it is sustainable or not. You can’t say let’s walk another 35 kilometers, because the next hotel has a Green Key certificate, that is not how it works” (R1). These human directories accumulate knowledge through consultation with local agents in destinations, hotel visits and private holidays (R17). Their knowledge is often tacit and not easily translated into a machine. CARMACAL confront product managers with their own decisions regarding tour packages. It points out trade-offs between passion and environment, established through negotiations with the machine. These involve dilemmas of all kinds; “I think it is very complicated, at this moment, because you will get that challenge, for instance the most successful hotel and then CARMACAL will show this hotel is very negative with high CO2 emissions, yes that becomes a challenge, I find that very complicated” (R6). The human directories may sense competition from the machine when the practices and knowledge they embody are no longer self- explanatory.
They will construct their arguments to defend their positions. “We will not use CARMACAL to change our tour packages; we already have a certain vision on how our tour packages should look and what they should include” (R9). We found many arguments like this one (table 6), but as observers we are not in a position to question their validity. This is the task of the innovators, those participating in the process. A daring task, for it takes courage to burn what one used to worship (Akrich et al, 2002b). We must however challenge what they represent, because these arguments lay out priorities, and the act of prioritizing always suggests an ordering process of some kind. The point is it is so human to grant top priority to what one has experienced before: the action that renders the biggest award or avoids a certain penalty; “new tour packages are made, which has priority to make those right, adjustment in older packages needs to happen first, guidelines, contracts, that always has priority one. After that comes sustainability and information related to that” (R5). The frustration expressed by the tool’s creators holds the fear of failure. Some hope for state intervention to speed up things; “this will be necessary to create a mind shift among tour operators” (R15). If the tool ends up at the bottom of a product manager’s to-do list, it will become unimportant. Once prone to arguments that serve to give it little priority, it will be difficult to veer back up. A self-defeating prophecy, struggling to earn back the relevance it lost for its users, stuck in a business occupied with the issues of the day.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 247 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 6. Arguments to defend current practices
Arguments Quotes
Further “It should become more user-friendly, much more atomized, and a link technological should be created between our tour package offers and the tour improvements packages that are in the calculator” (R11). are required
Using the tool is “The fact that it is so extremely labour-intensive per tour makes us labour-intensive think two or three times, whether this is actually feasible for us” (R9). and therefore too expensive. “We have around 135 tour packages; imagine what it will cost us to enter it all” (R9).
Too busy with “We have really been busy with all kinds of other things, and you really other tasks have to sit down and focus to do it well.. We should really plan it well, divide the work and do it during the quiet summer period” (R7).
Do not see the “So when you have entered ten tours and you notice that there is benefit of maybe a difference of 1 percent per destination package, yeah, then it entering the is kind of nonsense to enter all tours in CARMACAL” (R2). entire portfolio.
No staff “We did not start yet… it just has to do with man and woman power” available. (R5).
Not all product “There are many standard options in the tool, and that is exactly what elements are we try to do as little as possible, offering standard tour packages. available in the Airlines is relatively clear, but local transport, homestays, small-scale tool. accommodation…so we still have to do extra research and guesswork” (R9).
It weakens the “We could offer transport by land, but if all the tour operators offer a product at the flight, and we will be the only ones offering transport by land, that does risk of losing not make sense, because they will book with another tour operator business. anyway then” (R2).
“It is just kind of nonsense to put red stamps all over your own company” (R9).
The suppliers are “They cannot financially make ends meet let alone that they worry not interested, about other things” (R17) and we have too little influence to Four more tour operators are willing to take the accommodation, as it convince them to is (R20).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 248 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
get certified.
Broader A label for CO2 emissions only misses out on the people side of sustainability sustainability (R16). focus is preferred.
3. The absence of the customer
In our data, the customer is an abstraction. He is presented as an idea constructed through arguments, and not as a body, for he has not yet enrolled in CARMACAL. Numerous actors assembled him over and over again (Akrich et al, 2002a). The customer appeared in the ordering process that constructs his role and responsibility in reducing the carbon footprint of tour packages (table 7). Sometimes he is framed as the ego-consumer that should not be bothered; “Most people do not care at all, they are not interested in the environmental impact of their tour packages at all. Those people planned to go on a holiday, and they will do so, no matter what” (R14). Occasionally he functions as the mirror that projects the tour operator’s own preferences and ideas; “to what extent should you burden people that go on a holiday? I always find it aggravating when other people try to point out such things to me” (R10). Others hold him responsible: he has been put on trial for not behaving green enough (R1) or because of possession of holiday needs; “the customer wants to go on holiday, and I understand that, but then they also have to take responsibility for it” (R4). And there are those who defend him and claim he cannot be held responsible for a crime he did not commit (R15). “Customers “should be left out of the picture. After all, what can they do to change it, stay at home?” (R14). This shows how each time a different version emerged, always speaking its own truth.
Table 7. Distribution of responsibility (business – customer)
Position Quotes
The customer is ‘Eventually it is all about changing the behavior of the customer” (R1). responsible. “It is up to the customers what to do with the information, but eventually the result could be that people will travel more sustainably” (R3).
“The customer wants to go on holiday, and I understand that, but then they also have to take responsibility for it” (R4)
“We will create awareness about the effect travelers have on the world, and what the customer decide to do with this is up to them, whether they take it for granted or act upon it” (R6).
Both the “If you have to pay more for it, it should come from the customer as
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 249 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
business and well, as they will have to pay for it, though if the prices stay the same the customer and packages become CO2 neutral, then the customer does not have to are responsible. do anything, also not taking responsibility” (R4).
The business is “Initially the companies should start working with CARMACAL as the responsible, but customer is not yet paying attention to it” (R16). responsibility may gradually “The industry has more knowledge about the impacts than the average shift to the customer…These organizations need to take the first steps to raise customer. awareness among customers” (R11).
The business is “Customers trust us and believe that when something should be done, it responsible, no will be done by the company, so by us” (R3). matter what.
The customer also emerged in CARMACAL’s quest for value; a process of ordering that seeks to delineate his benefits. Some prefer him voiceless. They framed him as the one who has to pay the bill in the end. Their relationship seems purely transactional; “If you have to pay more for it, it should come from the customer as well, as they will have to pay for it (R4). Once reduced to his wallet, he got linked to all sorts of economic obstacles. He appears when mocked for spending too little; an argument meant to maintain the industry’s price- based propositions that seem written in stone; “in the end Dutch people are very conscious about their budget and careful with spending money, so they are not willing to pay more for a sustainable tour package” (R8). Also when carbon management happens in the back office, his voice is not required; “our customers book with us, because they assume it will all be taken care of by us, these customers do not go to our website and search for a holiday with a first criterion that it should be sustainable” (R1).
When carbon management is applied with an eco-efficiency strategy in mind, the customer is steered to the most sustainable package that earns the company the best profit. Informing him about this trick requires the company to publish confidential information, and whether he benefits remains questionable. Others seek to reach out to him; you can wait for the customers to ask for it, but that is not how it works” (R1). They have pushed the quest for value beyond their spreadsheets, and presently seek to experiment with various ways to include him in CARMACAL. Most hope to find value in the carbon label, which may increase his awareness; “you offer information a customer is not asking for, so you are one step ahead of the customer and if you then explain it to them, it will be adding value” (R3). They hope this will result in demand “I think that when customers see a label, green you are doing well, red you are not doing well, large groups of people will be sensitive for this and will adjust their tour package” (R5). Some seek value in carbon offsetting based on CARMACAL; “the label may offer added value when you can do something with it and when it is credible. When you can possibly do something with compensating.” (R10).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 250 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Finally, some see offsetting as means to build a relation with customers by offering them a customized offsetting offer (R1). The point is that nobody knows, because without physical presence in CARMACAL customers remain silent.
Conclusion and discussion
Scholars in various fields called for more empirical research at micro level that analyses how innovation works (e.g., Kudlak and Low, 2015; Wirtz et al, 2015; Mustak, 2014; Glavas and Aguinis, 2012; Camisón and Momfort mir, 2012; Baden-Fuller and Morgan, 2010; Hjalager, 2010; Akrich et al, 2002a; 2002b). Also limited tourism research examined the interrelations between innovation and CSR. Most work treated these concepts separately (e.g., Font et al, 2016; Wells et al, 2016; 2015, Hjalager, 2015; Brooker and Joppe, 2014; Rodríguez et al, 2014; Lee et al, 2013; Sandve and Øgaard, 2013; Camisón and Momfort mir, 2012; Font et al, 2012; Paget et al, 2010; Hjalager, 2010, Schwartz et al, 2012). The aim of this study was therefore to analyse how innovation works by providing an empirical account of an ongoing CSR-driven innovation process. We examined CARMACAL in the specific setting of the Dutch outbound travel industry. We illustrated how CARMACAL was constructed and its implication for the value mobilization process of tour operators.
Carbon management and carbon labelling each imply different notions about the distribution of responsibility for emission reduction between customers and business. Their coincidental entanglement resulted in CARMACAL. Initially, a funding search to develop a carbon measurement tool constructed this network, which led to the CARMATOP project. CARMATOP constitutes an ordering process that linked carbon management to carbon labelling through the funding requirements of the RAAK SME program. It produced the tool. Upon completion, not CARMATOP and its project funding but sales of the tool itself has to hold the network together. This requires expansion of its user base. At present both the existence of the device as well as its uncertain future triggers network configurations that will determine whether the network will hold or fall apart. Tour operating is a business activity driven by product stock rather than markets. At its core is the product manager, a human directory whose knowledge is often tacit and not easily translated into a machine. In this territory the tool encounters applause and hesitation, because it creates situations in which everyday routines are no longer self-evident. The tool continuously meets various counter-arguments that lay out priorities. When enrolled in this ordering process of prioritization, it risks becoming unimportant. Once stuck at the bottom of to-do lists in a business occupied with the issues of the day, it will be difficult to earn back lost relevance for its users. In CARMACAL the customer resembles an idea constructed through arguments. He features in the process of ordering that delineates his role and responsibility in reducing the carbon footprint of tour packages. Also he emerged in CARMACAL’s quest for value, an ordering process that seeks to identify his benefits. However as body he is absent as CARMACAL struggles to give him a role.
This paper makes three contributions to the literature. First, we show how CSR has triggered innovation. Our findings explain the enrolment of CARMACAL: how coincidence and the entanglement of two ideas constructed this network, and how a project and a piece of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 251 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
technology held it together. We found a CSR premise in all the different rationales, ideas, and strategies of those enrolled, which shows how CSR provided CARMACAL with a calculus (Van der Duim, 2007). And we identified CARMATOP as the ordering process that linked carbon management and carbon labelling and produced the tool. This study offers empirical evidence of underlying CSR mechanisms at the micro level (Glavas and Aguinis, 2012), and the role of CSR in stimulating innovations and addressing the environmental crisis (Kudlak and Low, 2015). All tour operators participate voluntarily and display a ‘right thing to do” attitude, rather than business motivations. As a result this study did not find empirical evidence of a CSR business case (which supports the claim of Mirvis et al (2016). The struggle of CARMACAL to enrol in the mainstream operations of tour operators –illustrated by the negotiations of trade-offs between product managers and the machine- encapsulates an attempt to move CSR beyond voluntary balancing acts (Coles et al, 2013).
Second, we demonstrate how dominant operational practices restrict innovation. Our findings show how social-technological confrontation enrols the tool in an ordering process that judges its relevance while innovation is in the making. The study provides an empirical account of challenges related to this technological diffusion and innovation in tourism enterprises (Camisón and Momfort mir, 2012; Hjalager, 2010). It also suggests that as long as current dominant operating practices prevail, the tool will not be able to reach a position where it can mobilize value and demonstrate its benefits to business (Da Silva and Trkman, 2014). However, its ability to measure the carbon footprint of tour packages puts a normative claim on its users. It invites tour operators to engage with broader problem framings and analytical perspectives (Smith et al, 2010). This may create a new ordering process that takes CARMACAL beyond the business-sustainability dichotomy of the classic CSR business case, transforms present business models, and produces shared or sustainable value (Mirvis et al 2016; Porter and Kramer 2011; Hart and Millstein, 2003). This requires space for the innovators to experiment with the tool in business settings, as well as strategic leverage to navigate the many “discourses of accusation”(Akrich et al, 2002b, p.224) encountered in the process.
Third, we show how the supply driven logic of the travel industry shapes an innovation environment that externalizes the customer from the innovation process and compromises innovation. Our findings illustrate CARMACAL is only performed when tour operators participate. To meet their requirements, it had to translate into their practices (Van der Duim, 2007) and adopt industry logic. Our findings illustrate how CARMACAL -with its technical and business-to-business orientation- has always considered the planet and its climate or the tour operators and their tour packages as its main beneficiaries, and never actively involved customers. The ordering processes that delineate their benefits and actions related to carbon footprint reduction of tour packages never gave them a voice. This makes the distribution of responsibility a matter of ownership. The customer made the footmark while on holiday, but who owns his footprint? It can be argued that as long as customers are not given the choice to purchase greener packages, the legal entity that packaged and resold them their holidays has to accept full responsibility for the carbon footprint of its products. As long as customers are not brought into a position to evaluate
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 252 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the product offer and express their preferences, they have no influence in the network. Enrolling customers in the network –no matter how- is therefore a fundamental prerequisite in the value mobilization process. This study illustrates the importance of knowledge about the role of customers in innovation processes of tour operators. With the dominant position of tour operators in directing tourism flows acknowledged (e.g., Adriana, 2009; Sigala, 2008; Schwartz et al, 2008;), and interest in the co-creation of value and services picking up (O’Cass and Sok, 2015; Sørensen and Jensen, 2015; Cabiddu et al, 2013), there is need for further research in this field. References
Achtenhagen, L., Melin, L., Naldi, L. (2013). Dynamics of Business Models – Strategizing, Critical Capabilities, and Activities for Sustained Value Creation. Long Range Planning. pp. 427-442.
Adriana, B. (2009). Environmental supply chain management in tourism: The case of large tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production. 17. pp. 1385-1392.
Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management. 38 (4). pp. 932-968.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (2002a). THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN INNOVATION PART I: THE ART OF INTERESSEMENT. International Journal of Innovation Management. 6(2). pp. 187-206.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (2002b). THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN INNOVATION PART II: THE ART OF CHOOSING GOOD SPOKESPERSONS. International Journal of Innovation Management. 6(2). pp. 207-225.
Amit, R., Zott, C. (2001). VALUE CREATION IN E-BUSINESS. Strategic Management Journal. 22. pp. 493-520.
ANVR (2016). Sustainable Tourism. Retrieved from: https://www.anvr.nl/English/sustainable-tourism.aspx Accessed on April 20, 2016
ANVR & Capgemini (2015). Travel Tomorrow. Envision the future of travel. Retrieved from: http://www.anvr.nl/_upload/NewsFiles/TravelTomorrow_Report-2943.pdf
Accessed on August 12, 2015.
Baden-Fuller, C., Haefliger, S. (2013). Business Models and Technological Innovation. Long Range Planning. 46. pp. 419-426.
Baden-Fuller, C., Morgan, M.S. (2010). Business Models as Models. Long Range Planning. 43. pp. 156-171.
Becken, S. (2013). A review of tourism and climate change as an evolving knowledge
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 253 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
domain. Tourism Management Perspectives. 6. pp. 53-62
Beulink, P., Dijkmans, C., Erdkamp, C., Lier, H., Mensink, H. (2012). ToT 2025. Toekomstvisie op Toerisme. (Reiswerk Branchevisie). Retrieved from Reiswerk website: https://www.reiswerk.nl/s/c/inl/120502_Branchevisie_2025_Rapport_HME_Final_ RDEF_EH_sflb.pdf Accessed on August 25, 2014
Blowfield, M., Murray, A. (2008). Corporate Responsibility: A critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bows, A., Anderson, K., & Peeters, P. (2009). Air transport, climate change and tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development. 6 (1). pp. 7-20
Brooker, E., Joppe, M. (2014). Developing a Tourism Innovation Typology: Leveraging Liminal Insights. Journal of Travel Research. 53 (4). pp. 500-508.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.W., Piiccoli, G. (2013). MANAGING VALUE CREATION IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY. Annals of Tourism Research. 42. pp. 86-107.
Camisón, C., Monfort-Mir, V.M. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management. 33. pp. 776-789.
Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews. 12 (1). pp. 85-105.
Carroll, A.B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: concepts and practices. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., Spiegel, D (eds.). (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. pp. 19-46. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society. 38 (3). pp. 268-295.
Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Towards moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. 34 (4). pp. 39-48
Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (2016a). CARMACAL – carbon management tool for tour operators. Retrieved from: http://www.cstt.nl/carmacal Accessed on April 20, 2016.
Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (2016b). CARMATOP. Retrieved from: http://www.cstt.nl/Projects/CARMATOP/17. Accessed on April 20, 2016.
Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (2016c). FACTSHEET CARMATOP. Retrieved from: http://www.cstt.nl/userdata/documents/factsheetprojectcarmatop.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2016
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 254 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning. 43. pp. 354-363.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate social responsibility. A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives. 6. pp. 122-141.
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., Spiegel, D (eds.). (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 15. pp. 1-13.
DaSilva, C.M., Trkman, P. (2014). Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not. Long Range Planning. 47. pp. 379-389.
Van der Duim, R. (2007). TOURISMSCAPES. An Actor-Network Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research. 34 (4). pp. 961-976.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 18(3). Pp. 377-392
Font, X., Guix, M., Jesús Bonilla-Priego, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value. Tourism Management. 53. pp. 175-186
Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., Häusler, N. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility: The disclosure – performance gap. Tourism Management. 33 (6). pp. 1544-1553.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits. In Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. Zimmerling, W.C., Holzinger, M., Richter, K. (eds). pp. 173-178. Springer: Berlin-Heidelberg.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M. (2015). Inter-market variability in CO2 emissions intensity in tourism: Implications for destination marketing and carbon management. Tourism Management. 46. pp. 203-2012
Gössling, S. (2010). Carbon management in tourism: Mitigating the impacts on climate change. Oxford: Routledge.
Gössling, S., Hall, M., Peeters, P., & Scott, D. (2010). The future of tourism: Can tourism growth and climate policy be reconciled? A mitigation perspective. Tourism Recreation
Research. 35 (2). pp. 119-130.
Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 255 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Executive. 6 (17). pp. 56-67.
Henningfeld, J., Pohl, M., Tolhurst, N. (eds.) (2012). The ICCA Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility. Hoboken (USA): John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hjalager, A.M. (2015). 100 Innovations That Transformed Tourism. Journal of Travel Research. 54 (1). pp. 3-21.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management. 31, pp. 1-12
Ihlen, J.L., Barlett, L., May, S. (eds.). (2011). The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jóhannesson, G.T., Van der Duim, R., Ren, C. (2012). Introduction. In Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., Jóhannesson, G.T. (eds.). Actor Network Theory and Tourism. Ordering, materiality and multiplicity. New York: Routledge.
Kudlak, R., Low, K.Y.J. (2015). Special Issues Dedicated to CSR and Corporate Sustainability: A Review and Commentary. Long Range Planning. 48. pp. 215-227.
Lee, S., Seo, K., Sharma, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: The moderating role of oil prices. Tourism Management. 38. pp. 20-30.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 23. pp. 19-25.
McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2010). Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 18 (3). pp. 297-318
Mirvis, P., Baltazar Herrera, M.E., Googins, B., Albareda, L. Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.busres.2016.04.073
Van de Mosselaer, F.F.H., Van der Duim, R., Van Wijk, J.J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in the tour operating industry: the case of Dutch outbound tour operators. In Lesie, D. (eds.). Tourism Enterprises and the Sustainability Agenda across Europe. Leslie, D. UK: Ashgate.
Mustak, M. (2014). Service innovation in networks: a systematic review and implications for business-to-business service innovation research. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 29 (2). pp. 151-163.
NBTC Holland Marketing (2014). Kerncijfers 2015. Retrieved from: http://kerncijfers.nbtc.nl/nl/magazine/8374/768413/cover.html. Accessed on June 14, 2016.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 256 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Nijboer, F., Goedegebure, E. (2012). #travel2020. Hoe en met wie gaan we in de toekomst op vakantie? (ING sectorvisie). Retrieved from ING website: https://www.ing.nl/Images/ING%20-%20travel2020%20-%20juni%202012_tcm14- 112126.pdf?id=20140817040554 Accessed on August 25 2014
O’Cass, A., Sok, P. (2015). An exploratory study into managing value creation in tourism service firms: Understanding value creation phases at the intersection of the tourism service firms and their customers. Tourism Management. 51. pp. 186-200
Paget. E., Dimanche, F., Mounet, J.P. (2010). A TOURISM INNOVATION CASE. An Actor- Network Approach. Annals of Tourism Research. 37 (3). pp. 828-847.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review. 89 (1-2). pp. 1- 17
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy & Society. The Link Between Competitive Advantage Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategy. Harvard Business Review. 84 (12). pp. 78-92
Reiswerk (2016). Reiswerk Facts and Figures 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.reiswerk.nl/dashboard. Accessed on June 14, 2016.
Reiswerk (2015). Onderzoeksagenda Reisbranche. Retrieved from: http://webmagazine.reiswerk.nl/nl/magazine/9771/784919/onderzoeksagenda.ht ml
Accessed on June 16, 2016
Ren, C., Jóhannesson, G.T., Van der Duim, R. (2012). How ANT works. In Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., Jóhannesson, G.T. (eds.). Actor Network Theory and Tourism. Ordering, materiality and multiplicity. New York: Routledge.
Ren, C. (2010). NON-HUMAN AGENCY, RADICAL ONTOLOGY AND TOURISM REALITIES. Annals of Tourism Research. 38(3). pp. 858-881.
Rodríguez, I., Williams, A.M., Hall, C.M. (2014). Tourism innovation policy: Implementation and outcomes. Annals of Tourism Research. 49. pp. 76-93.
Sandve, A. and Øgaard, T. (2013). Exploring the interaction between perceived ethical obligation and subjective norms, and their influence on CSR-related choices. Tourism Management. 42. pp. 177-180.
Schwartz, K., Tapper, R., Font, X. (2008). A Sustainable Supply Chain Framework for Tour Operators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 16 (3). pp. 298-314
Schumpeter JA. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & brothers.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 257 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Scott, D. (2011). Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 19 (1). pp. 17-34.
Shafer, S.M., Smith, H.J., Linder, J.C. (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons. 48. pp. 199-207.
Sigala, M. (2008). A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators on sustainable tourism. The case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16. pp. 1589-1599.
Sørensen, F., Jensen, J.F. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management. 46. pp. 336-346.
Spector, B. (2008). Business Responsibilities in a Divided World. The Cold War Roots of the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement. Enterprise and Society. 9 (2). pp. 314- 336.
Teece, D.J. (2010). Business models, strategy, and innovation. Long Range Planning. 43 pp. 172-194.
Thomas Cook Group (2015). Sustainability Reports. Retrieved from: https://www.thomascookgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Sustainability-Report- 2015.pdf. Accessed on June 8, 2016.
Tolhurst, N., Pohl, M. (eds). (2012). Responsible Business: How to Manage a CSR Strategy Succesfully. Hoboken (USA): John Wiley & Sons Inc.
TUI Group (2015). “Better Holidays, Better World” Sustainability Strategy 2015-2020. Retrieved from: http://www.tuigroup.com/damfiles/default/tuigroup- 15/en/sustainability/TUI-Group-Better-Holidays-Better-World-strategy_EN- 99f09424b12ad17abe74e39128ff7e44.pdf Accessed on April 12, 2016.
Wells, V.K., Taheri, B., Gregory-Smith, D., Manika, D. (2016). The role of generativity and attitudes on employees home and workplace water and energy saving behaviours. Tourism Management. 56. pp. 63-74.
Wells, V.K., Manika, D., Gregory-Smith, D., Taheri, B., McCowlen, C. (2015). Heritage Tourism, CSR, and the role of employee environmental behaviour. Tourism Management. 48. pp. 399-413.
Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., Göttel, V. (2016) Business Models: Origin, Development, and Future Research. Long Range Planning. 49(1). pp. 36-54.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 258 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Wirtz, B., Schilke, O., Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic Development of Business Models. Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range Planning. 43. pp. 272-290.
Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management. 37 (4). pp. 1019-1042.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 259 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Certification for Sustainable Tourism in Germany – Overview, requirements and effectiveness Wolfgang Strasdas
Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Germany [email protected]
Key words: Certification, sustainability criteria, verification, effectiveness, Germany
Abstract
Certification schemes for sustainable tourism can be seen as a key voluntary instrument to measure, verify and communicate the CSR management and performance of tourism businesses. Today a large number of such schemes can be found around the world. However, to what degree these systems are effective in actually promoting sustainability in tourism is highly controversial. While most experts believe that independent certification is indispensable for measuring sustainability and providing guidance to stakeholders, others criticise that in spite of the proliferation of certification systems the number of certified tourism businesses has remained insignificant and that most consumers do not know about them.
Aim
The German Federal Ministry of the Environment has commissioned a study that has aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. How many and what kind of certification systems for sustainable or environmental tourism exist in Germany?
2. How many and what kind of businesses/organisations have been certified?
3. What are the requirements of these systems regarding sustainability criteria and verification procedures?
4. How effective are they in terms of actual sustainability or environmental performance and market penetration?
5. What conclusions can be drawn for sustainable tourism policies?
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 260 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Methods
Mixed methods were used for the study. Apart from a general literature analysis, the basic research consisted of gathering information on the identified certification systems from their websites and through an additional questionnaire where relevant information was not available online. For determining the quality of the certification systems, the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) and ISO 26000, the international standard for the implementation of CSR, were used as guidelines for assessing the scope and depth of criteria. For evaluating the rigorousness and trustworthiness of the verification process the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards (ISEAL Alliance 2014) served as an orientation. In addition, a quantitative survey of certified businesses/ organisations was conducted in order to find out about the perceived effectiveness of the certification.
Preliminary study results were discussed with a large panel of tourism stakeholders representing government, industry associations as well as environmental, social and consumer organisations by using the interactive World Café method. Finally, individual interviews were conducted with selected stakeholders and experts that focused on policy implications and recommendations. Results
What is sometimes called a “label jungle” (NFI et al. 2014) can also be found in Germany. A large number of 33 certification organisations grant 43 different certificates to tourism businesses and organisations. About two thirds compete over the same target group: accommodations. Certifying destinations for their sustainability is a relatively new trend. The certification organisations themselves have diverse backgrounds: About half of them are for-profit companies or are associated with industry organisations. One third have been initiated by environmental or other advocacy groups, while the remainder are government structures.
In total, about 4,500 tourism businesses or entities have been certified. This is higher than anticipated and represents about 5% of all businesses in the accommodation sector. However, over 50% of all certificates have been granted by only two certification systems, a rather narrowly defined quality label for hiking tourism and a certificate granted by protected area agencies to businesses in their surroundings. The percentage of certified tour operators and travel agencies is extremely low, and there are no certificates for tourism products. The great majority of certified businesses are small and medium enterprises.
In terms of content there is a strong focus on ecological criteria, followed by general management and quality criteria. Social criteria are clearly underrepresented. Thus, only about 10% of the analysed certificates cover sustainability in a broad sense. More emphasis is put on performance criteria than on management processes, but only about 50% of the schemes require certified businesses to continuously improve their sustainability or
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 261 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
environmental performance. Regarding verification, 80% of the certifiers stipulate independent 3rd party on-site assessments. Transparency of the criteria and verification processes applied is usually high. In summary, five certificates are of an exceptionally high quality, whereas one third show marked weaknesses regarding content and/or verification.
The survey of 238 certified business/organisations revealed a high degree of satisfaction with their respective certificates, but rather limited effects or benefits. The latter were mostly image- and stakeholder-related. Environmental and social sustainability performance was perceived to have hardly improved, with the exception of increasing procurement of local products and services. Conclusions
There is a proliferation of certification systems for sustainable tourism in Germany, most of which focus on environmental criteria. The finding of this study that certification systems are of a different quality regarding content and verification is similar to previously conducted international studies (e.g. Totem Tourism 2013). So far, sustainable tourism certificates, in Germany and internationally, have had limited effects regarding market penetration or tangible benefits to the certified businesses/organisations. In Germany certificates with a rather narrow thematic approach and a clear link to product quality in certain tourism segments (nature-based tourism, health tourism, beaches) are more successful than those with broader and more demanding sustainability requirements.
Whether certification systems have succeeded in improving the actual sustainability performance of the certified businesses remains difficult to answer. The few empirical studies (e.g. Bonilla-Priego et al. 2011, Lassen/Beissert 2012, Ciminski 2014) that have been conducted in this regard are partially contradictory, but tend to indicate that the desired effect is minimal or mostly relating to internal management and “low-hanging fruits” (such as buying green electricity) rather than to global supply chains or tourism mobility. This could either mean that most certification systems are not demanding or strict enough or that certification “rewards” businesses that have already been committed to CSR. Furthermore there are no benchmarks that would allow to systematically compare the sustainability performance of certified to non-certified companies. These aspects require more research.
Nevertheless, most tourism stakeholders and experts concur that certification is an important tool to promote sustainable tourism in Germany, but that this tool needs to be strengthened, for example by increased awareness-raising and marketing to consumers and business partners (B2B) and by integrating it into online booking platforms – actions that have been called for earlier, without having shown substantial effects. Whether the state should set a legal minimum standard for sustainable tourism certificates, such as for organic food, was discussed controversially. While some NGOs support this idea, with the hope to give more political and public weight to sustainable tourism, most tourism industry associations reject it, arguing that the sector is already committed to sustainability and can regulate itself. In turn, government institutions appear to shy away from more prescriptive
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 262 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
policy approaches unless there is a clear political mandate for it.
Limitations
The study has provided a first overview of the situation of sustainable tourism certification in Germany and has been exploratory in nature. Due to funding restrictions the timeframe was only four months. Thus, it has been impossible to analyse the individual certification systems in depth. Another limitation has been the large number and heterogeneity of certified tourism organisations and the rather low response rate of 5% to the survey. Most importantly, their statements as to what degree certification is effective in improving their sustainability performance have been subjective in nature and could not be verified.
References
Bonilla-Priego, M., Najero, J. & Font, X. (2011): Environmental management decision-making in certified hotels. In: Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (3), 361-381
Ciminski, L. (2014): Evaluation des Zertifizierungsprogramms TourCert für Reiseveranstalter (Evaluation of the TourCert certification scheme for tour operators). Master thesis, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development/Germany
ISEAL Alliance (2014): Setting Social and Environmental Standards – ISEAL Code of Good Practice. December 2014
Lassen, K. & Beissert, H. (2012): Umweltschutz- und Energiesparmaßnahmen in der deutschen Hotellerie – Evaluierung ausgewählter Ökolabel und EU-Förderprojekte (Environmental protection and energy saving measures in the German hospitality sector – Evaluation of selected eco-labels and EU funding projects). Master thesis, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development/Germany
Naturefriends International et al. (2014): Sustainability in Tourism – A guide through the label jungle. Vienna
Totem Tourism (2013): Tourism & Greenwash Report. Batheaston/UK
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 263 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility: An overview of German Tour Operators Susanne Reimann* & Sandro Carnicelli^
*University of the West of Scotland, Great Britain, [email protected]
^University of the West of Scotland, Great Britain, [email protected]
Key words: CSR, Tour Operator, Comparison, Conceptualisation Introduction
In the tourism industry, whilst some companies have taken active steps towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), others are yet to adopt a responsible approaching to business. According to Betz (2010), CSR is a relatively new concept in the tourism industry and some companies operating in this sector do not comprehend the significance of engaging in CSR activities. Although some companies often invest in CSR purely for the benefit of society, others seem to engage in CSR activities merely for reputation building and brand image, so they are frequently accused of greenwash (Cherry & Sneirson, 2011) or corporate hypocrisy (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009) when the policies they espouse fail to match the actual practice.
Whilst research regarding CSR in the tourist sector has been conducted by many researchers (Povlsen, 2011; Dodds & Kuehnel, 2010; Ciuchete et. al., 2012), a gap can be detected related to knowledge of comparative CSR practices in small, medium and large tour operators. Hence, the motivation for this research is to add to the existing knowledge of CSR focusing on a range of tour operators. This research provides an overview of how German tour operators conceptualise the phenomenon of CSR and discuss the challenges they are facing.
The problem reviewed in this research regards the awareness of CSR practices in German tour operators, and the extent to which these companies are effective in designing and implementing CSR to leverage performance, whilst satisfying the needs of stakeholders and society. Therefore, the aim of this particular research is to look at the conceptualisation of CSR at operators and to identify the differences between them. This paper is part of a larger research that aims to understand not only the conceptualisation but also the implementation and development of CSR strategies in tour operators in Germany. Methodology
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), data can be collected either from human sources with the help of observations and interviews or from non-human sources like documents and records. For the present research, qualitative semi-structured interviews as well as document analysis were used for data collection. Herewith, the document analysis was used
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 264 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
in order to support the results from the interviews.
The chosen method for this study was telephone interviews (Carr & Worth, 2001). Herewith, a recorder was used so that the interviewer could better analyse the data collected (Bernard, 2002). Thirteen representatives from small, medium and large sized German tour operators were interviewed in order to explore their understanding of CSR addressing not only the interpretation of the term but also looking at the implementation of CSR practices within the different tour operators. Herewith, the classification into small, medium-sized and large companies was done according to the definition of the OECD and the European Commission where the crucial figures are total revenue and number of employees. (OECD, 2005)
Additionally to the interviews, a document analysis was chosen. Here, CSR policies, brochures, content of internet pages as well as sustainability reports were analysed in order to get a better understanding of the operations of the chosen companies. The conducted results from the document analysis were then aligned and compared with the outcome of the interviews. Conducting the document analysis, it was perceived as good source of background information, providing a “behind the scenes” look and brought up issues not noted by other means (Finn & Jacobsen, 2008).
In the present research, a meta-matrix approach for analysing the interviews was adopted (Kvale, 1996). An index of central themes and sub-themes was generated, which was then further represented in the matrix. The themes and sub-themes are generated by a systematic data analysis and then a meta-matrix framework is applied. Results
The initial focus of this research is set on understanding the conceptualisation of CSR. Therefore, this research looked at tour operator´s interpretation and reasons for implementing CSR practices. The type of CSR activities tour operators are conducting were analysed as well as the CSR responsibilities inside the company and the control mechanisms.
Herewith, some interesting points arose. The interpretation and understanding of the term CSR varied considerably across the participants and demonstrated that many did not agree on the term, and preferred to use the word sustainability or related terms such as corporate responsibility or corporate sustainability.
Also literature on CSR has significantly developed since the writings on corporate social responsibility started in the 1950s (Carroll & Beiler, 1977; Carroll, 1999; Freeman, 1984; Sturdivant, 1977). As a result of the development of the term, disagreements arose regarding the meaning of CSR as well as whether, how and why it should be implemented (Welford, 2003). Webb (2002) for example claims that the phrase CSR is fairly “confusing”. According to him, people would understand more easily that also the environmental and financial aspects of corporate performance are included by eliminating the word “social” and taking the words “corporate responsibility” instead.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 265 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In the conducted research whereas some tour operators varied in their interpretation of CSR as a voluntary activity in which the company took responsibility for its actions, meaning that CSR could not be imposed on a company without its consent, another tour operator understood CSR as social commitment towards society where ecological factors are included. For this participant the term CSR was considered complex, a phenomenon most individuals could not define. Therefore, they used the word sustainable for which the meaning was also suggested as being vague. Some others proposed that CSR was concerned with giving something back to the society from the revenues made from its travel operations. They acknowledged that a number of different interpretations of CSR were employed globally and mentioned charity and philanthropy as often being misunderstood as CSR practices. The data collected show differences in interpretation of the term CSR appearing to take on more complex meanings depending on the size of the company.
In both, this research as well as in literature, many expressions and interpretations of the term CSR were found. Nevertheless, in most of the cases the term refers to corporation´s activities that address economic, social and environmental issues.
Conclusion
The findings have been reported and analysed according to subject area. With the help of a thematic analysis the major points that were stated could be identified and an evaluation could be conducted. Through the analysis it was demonstrated that there are differences in perception and behaviour when looking at different German tour operators. References
Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Betz, K. (2010). Benchmarking Corporate Social Responsibility: CSR is still new Territory in the Tourism Industry. In R. Conradi & M. Buck (2010), Trends and Issues in Global Tourism (pp.117-119). Hamburg, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Carr, E. & Worth, A. (2001). The use of the Telephone Interview for Research. Nursing Times Research, 6, 511–524.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society Review, 38 (3), 268-295. Retrieved on April 5, 2016, from Academia Database.
Carroll, A. B. & Beiler, G. W. (1977). Landmarks in the Evolution of the Social Audit. In A. B. Carroll (1978), Managing Corporate Social Responsibility. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Co.
Charry, A. M. & Sneirson, J. (2011). Beyond Profit: Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing after the BP Oil Disaster. Tulane Law Review, 85 (4), 983-1038.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 266 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Ciuchete, S. G., Grigore, G. F., Hornoiu, R., & Padureju, E. (2012). Romanian Tour-Operators - A Qualitative Approach of Corporate Social Responsibility and Globalization. African Journal of Business Management, 6 (1), 1660-1666.
Dodds, R. & Kuehnel, J. (2010). CSR among Canadian Mass Tour Operators: Good Awareness but Little Action. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22 (2), 221-244.
Finn, J. & Jacobson, M. (2008). Just Practice: A Social Justice Approach to Social Work. Peosta, Iowa: Eddie bowers publishing.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach. London, Great Britain: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Kvale, S. (1996). An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
OECD (2005), OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook: 2005. Paris: OECD
Povlsen, A. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Danish Tour Operating Industry: An investigation of Danish Tour Operators' engagement in CSR and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries. Saarbruecken, Germany: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.
Sturdivant, F. (1977). Business and Society: A managerial approach. Homewood, Illinois: R.D. Irwin Inc.
Wagner, T., Lutz R. J. & Weitz B. A. (2009). Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the Threat of Inconsistent Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 77-91.
Webb, T. (2002). Editor’s Notes, Ethical Corporation Magazine, 3.
Welford, R. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical Elements and Best Practice, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 31-47.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 267 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Session 3: C(S)R, Sustainable Development and Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Destinations
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 268 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Responsible High Performance Sports Tourism – Opportunities and Limitations
Kerstin Heuwinkel* & Liz Bressan^
*University of Applied Sciences Saarbrücken, Germany, [email protected]
^University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, [email protected]
Key words: Corporate social responsibility, sports travel, sports tourism, high performance sport, athletes, impact, policies
Introduction
The concept of corporate (social) responsibility in tourism implicitly assumes that there is a corporation that is willing and capable of being responsible for something of social value, e.g. “to integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis" (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 6). Corporate responsibility in relation to tourism is not as straight- forward because the majority of tourism products are not produced by one single company. Instead, tourism depends upon a functioning service chain or value chain within a destination (Bieger, 2006). Numerous service providers, including some of which may be corporations, work in an integrated manner in order to offer one product. In addition, many tourism products are not provided by commercial organisations only, but also include public and non-profit infrastructures and services as well. For example, stadiums and gyms are providers for sports tourism, museums and theatres for culture tourism, and hospitals for medical tourism. One outcome of this multi-provider basis for tourism is that it is difficult to define which if any corporation should or might choose to be held responsible (Pomering et al., 2011).
Well established tourism markets such as sun and beach summer holidays include service integrators and mediators. These are the tour operators and tourism boards that define and sell packages appearing to be homogenous products. Those companies can be considered to be the agents of responsible tourism. Indeed, some of the most active actors in responsible tourism besides NGOs are tour operators and tourism boards. Many initiatives were implemented and supported by them. One example is “Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development (TOI)”, founded in 2000 as a network of tour operators. Other examples come from the transportation (airlines, railway) and accommodation sectors (hotel chains). Many hotel chains have integrated corporate social responsibility measures and publish annual reports (e.g. Accor, Marriott, and Riu).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 269 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Niche and emerging markets, e. g. sports tourism, are not organised in the same way. The term niche market itself can be misleading because it suggests a small size and limited appeal when in reality there are many tourist destinations that focus on niche markets. For instance, sports tourism is a fast growing sector. According to the UNWTO (2010) sports tourism accounts for 25% of travel and tourism receipts. Furthermore, niche markets are very often the starting point for developing tourism in a region. Weed & Bull (2009) explained that some major tourism providers use sports tourism to supplement their main product. The challenge for sport tourism is how to design and implement a strategy for responsible tourism in a market without clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
This paper aims at determining policies for (corporate) responsibility in sports tourism within the context of a specific destination. In order to do so, two steps must be taken. First, the impact of sports tourism has to be analysed in order to define what responsible sports tourism means. Second, the realization that responsible sports tourism requires strategic drivers to promote its principles will be discussed in relation to how a network of commercial, public, and non-profit organisations can function as these drivers. Due to the inter-sectoral character of sports tourism it must be acknowledged that a clear assignment of responsibility may be difficult. In terms of this specific paper, new actors in sport tourism such as the German Athletics Federation (DLV) and Maties Sport at the University of Stellenbosch will have to be considered.
The following questions will be discussed in this paper:
- What does responsible sports tourism mean?
- Who is responsible for corporate responsibility in sports tourism?
- How can corporate responsibility be expressed in a sports destination?
- What role can athletes play when it comes to responsible sports tourism? How can they contribute to increase positive and reduce negative effects of tourism on the local environment?
- How can responsible sports tourism be linked to tourism in general?
Due to the multifaceted character of sports tourism this paper focuses on high performance sport (elite sport) training camps only. In order to guarantee practical relevance camps held for visiting German national athletes at Stellenbosch University in Stellenbosch, South Africa, are used as case study and to illustrate the discussion. In the next section, related literature will be presented. Then, methods for the case study are explained. The findings of the case study are then used to discuss different aspects of responsible sports tourism. The paper concludes with a summary of the opportunities and limitations of responsible sports tourism as revealed within in this case study.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 270 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Literature Review
According to Hall (1992, p. 147) sports tourism comprises “travel to participate in sport and travel to observe sport”. The latter mainly refers to (mega) sports events. Depending on the understanding of sport “travel to participate in sport” might be restricted to competitive sports or it may include recreational and leisure activities, too. For a better understanding of different concepts of sports tourism see Weed, 2006.Table 1 shows possible combinations.
Table 1: Sports tourism (compiled by authors based on Hall, 1992; Weed & Bull, 2006)
NARROW UNDERSTANDING BROADER UNDERSTANDING (COMPETITIVE) (RECREATIONAL)
I. PARTICIPATE a) Sports events (HP athletes, IN SPORT coaches etc.)
b) Training camps (HP f) Boot camps athletes, coaches etc.)
c) Mass participation events g) Mass participation events (HP athletes, coaches etc.)
II. OBSERVE d) Sports events (visitors) SPORT
e) Mass participation events h) Mass participation events (visitors) (visitors)
There appears to be limited research on category I, especially Ia and Ib. In contrast to this, many studies are dedicated to category II. Weed & Bull (2009, p. 41) state that “event impact assessment has almost become an industry in its own right”. The main objectives of impact assessment related to sports tourism are to determine the effects of (mega) sports events (Crompton et al., 2001; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2001). With regard to economy, visitor spending is calculated (Crompton, 1995). Furthermore, the contribution of these events to transformation in a country is analysed (Swart et al., 2011). Other authors focus on the link between mega-events and sustainable development (Lill & Thomas, 2012). Only some studies take professional visitors, i.e. athletes, trainer, doctors, media into account (Turco et al., 2010). This is surprising as studies show that professional visitors spend a lot of money. Reasons for this are that athletes and coaches stay longer at the destination than visitors and that due to limited leisure time they cannot look for cheaper alternatives when it comes to sightseeing, buying souvenirs etc.
Surveys on mass participation events consider participants as well as visitors. Still, mass participation events are short-term events, normally lasting for one or two days (W2Consulting, 2015). Although legacy is discussed in this context the question is how to
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 271 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
generate long-lasting effects from such a short event.
Although events are important elements of tourism and especially of sports tourism, they are not primary within the scope of this paper. The focus here remains on exploring the potential for long-term responsible sports tourism within a single high performance sport destination. Events certainly might be an element of a sport tourism strategy because they attract visitors and media interest, but in order to be considered a sports destination, events are not enough.
When it comes to corporate responsibility in tourism a lot of literature can be found. Responsible tourism management (RTM) has been categorised under the theme of corporate social responsibility (Frey & George, 2010; Goodwin, 2011). RTM addresses economic, environmental and social aspects. The last one is very often disregarded. Although academic publications (Lund-Durlacher, 2012; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000) as well as various declarations and manuals (RTP, 2002; Spenceley et al., 2002) mention the importance of social aspects, it is very difficult to define them and then to measure social effects (Coles et al., 2013; Mihalic et al., 2012). Social effects often need time to become visible. Socially desirable outcomes such as meaningful interaction, cultural encounters, improved quality of life, self-esteem, gender equality, reduced drug and crime rates present extraordinary challenges to confidence that the tourism intervention was a factor in the results. Measuring these indicators is also extremely difficult because it is based upon mostly invisible phenomena, e.g. feelings, expectation, perceptions, and attitudes (Coalter, 2002).
Leading international and national organisations such as the UNWTO (2004) and the UNESCO (2010) have developed frameworks for sustainable tourism that can be used as guides when designing a general strategy for responsible tourism management. These frameworks define general principles. Other organisations have developed specific criteria and indicators for setting up responsible tourism in companies. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council Criteria for Destinations (GSTC C-D) and the related performance indicators have specifically addressed destination issues (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2013).
Tourism industries in general as well as single tourism businesses can be expected to provide responsible products for the market. However, another stakeholder in tourism can be considered. How and why should tourists/visitors/business travellers be integrated into a strategy for responsible tourism as active elements and not only by paying carbon taxes? Responsibility should be shared by all stakeholders (UNWTO, n.d.). Consumers can be encouraged to take action themselves (Coles et al., 2013). This approach might conflict with the traditional protected image of care free holidays or to the self-involved atmosphere of a high performance sports training camp. A revised perception of sport tourism on the part of the stakeholders will rely on learning and access to new experiences if sportswomen and men in training situations are to become responsible tourists. Although this is a new direction for high performance sport, recommendations of the UNWTO (2004) as well as scholars (Liu, 2003) suggest that leaders in sport tourism broaden the concept of sustainability to include the integration of sport tourists into the destination environment.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 272 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Methods
In order to define policies for responsible sports tourism within a destination a framework for responsible tourism is needed. Dimensions and indicators for economic, environmental, and social aspects have to be defined. Numerous frameworks, guidelines, labels, and set of indicators to measure, assess, and control responsible tourism on a company or destination levels were reviewed. The bases for this paper are the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2013), the UNWTO Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations (UNWTO, 2004), and the National Sport and Recreation Plan (Republic of South Africa, 2012b) in combination with studies on quality of life (Uysal et al., 2015) and sports for communities (Coalter, 2002).
The empirical bases for the paper were training camps in Stellenbosch in combination with on-site research in Stellenbosch during November 2015 and March 2016. In order to find out about athletes’ attitudes towards responsible sports tourism an online survey was conducted. Thirty (30) German coaches were contacted and asked to invite athletes’ who already attended a training camp in Stellenbosch to participate. A total of 20 athletes’ filled in the questionnaire. Additional data were gathered from expert interviews with promoters of training camps, coaches and athletes. Partners of the project were the Centre of Human Performance Sciences, University of Stellenbosch and the Grootbos Foundation.
High performance sport training camps in South Africa
Shortly after the end of apartheid the Department of Sport and Recreation defined a national policy framework to develop sport in South Africa and to benefit from its positive impact (Government of South Africa, 1995; Republic of South Africa, 2012a). Sport was said to play an important role in the development and transformation of the country (Swart et al., 2011). It should support the following three national government priorities: economic development; social cohesion and development; and political stability (Republic of South Africa, 2012a). In order to do so the strategy included bidding for and hosting international events, the extension of national events and finally training camps to attract international guests.
The first White Paper on development and promotion of tourism in South Africa was released in 1996 (Government of South Africa, 1996). The White Paper (1996, p. 22) proposed “Responsible Tourism” as a new tourism in contrast to the old tourism. Key elements were:
- “Avoid waste and over-consumption
- Use local resources sustainably
- Maintain and encourage natural, economic, social and cultural diversity
- Be sensitive to the host culture
- Involve the local community in planning and decision-making
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 273 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
- Assess environmental, social and economic impacts as a prerequisite to developing tourism
- Ensure communities are involved in and benefit from tourism
- Market tourism that is responsible, respecting local, natural and cultural environments
- Monitor impacts of tourism and ensure open disclosure of information”.
Even before the first White Paper on sport and creation was released in 1998, teams had travelled to South Africa to attend training camps during the European winter (October- April). As early as 1994, the first German athletics team had stayed in Stellenbosch for a training camp (Thomaskamp, personal communication, September 2015). Since then, athletics teams from Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands have been travelling to Stellenbosch once or twice a year. In the last years more and more triathletes have joined in. Thus, for more than 20 years high performance athletes spend up to twelve weeks per year in Stellenbosch. The athletes are accompanied by coaches, doctors, and officials. Sometimes the teams encompass up to 120 people (DLV, 2015). The average number of German athletes, coaches, etc. travelling to Stellenbosch for a training camp is 234 between 2008 and 2016. This results in an average of 4004 overnight stays per year.
400 6000 5000 300 4000 200 3000 2000 100 1000 0 0
Fig. 1: Number of German athletes etc. Fig. 2: Overnight stays of German athletes etc.
Reasons for European sports teams to travel to Stellenbosch include perfect weather conditions, high quality of sport and tourism infrastructure, and a very good value for money. These aspects are important success factors for destinations to attract high performance sports teams (Fig. 3).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 274 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Fig. 3: Success factors for training camps (Source: Heuwinkel, 2015)
Preferred leisure time activities are relaxing, reading, shopping, skyping, or adventures like shark cage diving (Thomaskamp, personal communication, September 2015; Johnson, personal communication, November, 2015).
During a workshop in Stellenbosch in March 2016 it became clear that little is known about the economic, environmental, and social impact of these training camps. Furthermore, the communication between local organisations, e.g. Stellenbosch 360 and Maties Sport, and the teams has been poor to non-existent. All role players recognised this situation and expressed the wish to improve communication.
Some of the visiting athletes referred to their experience as training in a bubble. They train in a kind of paradise but feel and sometimes see that reality is different. They reported they would like to learn more about the country, living conditions and problems of the local people (personal communication November 2015).
In order to get an understanding of the opportunities and limitations that might be relevant to these training camps, tourism indicators for visiting sports training teams were collected and compared with German visitors’ behaviour to Western Cape in general (see Table 2). The calculation is based on documentation from the last 8 years for German athletics teams.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 275 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 2: Comparison German visitors to Western Cape – Sports training teams
VISITORS TO WESTERN SPORTS TRAINING CAPE TEAMS
MARKET SHARE 27.5 % overseas visitors Majority of teams are (26.3 % of them overseas teams Germans)
German visitors to German teams Western Cape
MAIN PURPOSE OF VISIT 89.4 % Holiday/leisure 100 % sports training
MOST COMMON TRAVEL GROUP SIZE 48.8 % Pairs 10-30 (sometimes up 9.6. % Five & more to 100)
MOST COMMON AGE GROUP 40.1 % 36-50 90% 21-35 30.2 % 51-70 *
MOST COMMON LENGTH OF STAY PER 33.5 % 1 night 17 nights TOWN/CITY 27.9 % 2 nights
MOST COMMON MODE OF 61.9 % rented car 90 % rented car TRANSPORT
TOP INFORMATION SOURCE 34.0 % Word of mouth 90 % Word of mouth 23.7 % Internet/websites
MOST COMMON TYPE OF 37.5 % Guesthouse B&B, Guesthouse ACCOMMODATION 19.8 % Bed & Breakfast growing importance of large hotels especially for groups and Top Team
AVERAGE DAILY SPEND ON R201-R500 R501-R1000 ACCOMMODATION
AVERAGE DAILY SPEND R1001-R2000 R201-R500
TOP THREE ACTIVITIES 23.3 % Scenic drives Training 15.8 % Culture/heritage Relaxing 14.6 % Gourmet restaurants Physiotherapy City Tour
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 276 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Shopping
*all overseas visitors
Source: Compiled by Source: Compiled by author based on author based on Western Cape Tourism documentation Trends provided by Johnson April-June 2015 2016, expert interviews
The comparison reveals some important differences that may affect the concept of responsible sports tourism and offer some interesting opportunities for future development:
1. Sports training teams stay much longer in one destination than German visitors in general.
According to the Cape Town declaration (RTP, 2002) responsible tourism “provides more enjoyable experiences for tourists through more meaningful connections with local people, and a greater understanding of local cultural, social and environmental issues”. Meaningful interaction from a sociological perspective needs time and includes shared values and norms, and the chance to meet again (Weber 1984; Goffman, 1959). Visitors who hop from one destination to another cannot develop this. Thus, due to the length of stay, sports training camps offer the opportunity for meaningful interaction between local residents and visitors. Furthermore, in the case of the German athletes many of them travel to Stellenbosch frequently during a period of five or six years depending on their performances. This could further increase the potential to develop feeling of connectedness, too.
2. The group size of sports training teams is bigger.
Hosting bigger groups can be an advantage and a disadvantage. On the one hand it is easier to identify and organise activities for them because not all group members would have to participate in order to make it worthwhile. Discussion within the group can be initiated and multiple points of view can enrich the experience. A negative aspect of larger groups might be that they can stay so focussed on themselves and each other, that they are not open for the surrounding opportunities (Homans, 1974).
3. The average age of sports training teams is lower.
South Africa is a very young country (UN, 2015). Average German visitors are older than 36 years. In contrast to this German sports team members are young which could make it easier to start communication and interaction between them and local people. Athletes also can attract local youth because they may be seen as role models for children as well as young local athletes. If athletes are interested in engaging in cohort social interaction, they
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 277 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
may realise that “tourism and travel initiate changes in the perception and the understanding of the environment” as Gössling (2002). This would be a positive outcome for those athletes interested in expanding their world-view.
4. Purpose.
Training in Stellenbosch is part of the career of many German athletes and can be a decisive stage on the way to the Olympic Games or a World Cup. Sporting success can contribute to fond memories and a highly positive perception of the value of the destination. As a consequence, the bonding between a destination and the athlete increases and so does the feeling of connectedness and responsibility. A strategy to mobilize these feelings for the benefit of both the athletes and the destination should be elaborated.
To summarize, sports training teams engaged in high performance camps over an extended number of days/weeks, offer options to initiate responsible tourism activities as well as to enhance the positive link between sports teams and the destination. In the next sections the actual situation of the camps at Stellenbosch will be addressed with respect to social, economic, and environmental issues. Recommendations will then be made for positive future actions.
Social Issues and Customer Involvement
When it comes to social issues the Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism (2002) provides the following criteria:
a) “Provide more enjoyable experiences for tourists”,
b) “Engender respect between tourists and hosts”, and
c) “Build local pride and confidence”.
The German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB, 2010) as well as the Government of South Africa (2012b) consider sport to be a driving force for integration and social cohesion. Thus, sports tourism might be a good option to start intercultural encounters. As discussed before, the strong bonding between athletes and destination can be used to establish strong relationships.
The complexity of community involvement must be discussed (Richards & Hall, 2000). To start with, the concept of community itself is difficult, especially when talking about South Africa. According to the White Paper there are still inequalities when it comes to access and participation in sport (Republic of South Africa, 2012a). Furthermore, interaction with local communities are often used in tourism as a kind of staged authenticity connected with plain living conditions (Richards & Hall, 2000, p. 4). Connecting sports tourism with interaction opportunities in local communities is a promising direction. One strategy would be to ask sport visitors and hosts about their expectations, needs, and feelings and to start joint activities and coordinate their views with those of members of the local communities in question. A careful monitoring of the experiences of all role players in community
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 278 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
interaction activities will be crucial. It is well known that in practice there can be great differences between expectations and the reality of intercultural encounters (GlobCit, 2016).
Currently, the interaction between teams and local people in Stellenbosch is non-existent. Athletes live and train in isolated areas, mainly hotel, stadium, gym. They drive with rented cars from one place to another. When they stay in one of the large hotels there is no need for them to go to a local restaurant or a supermarket. Others, who stay in a B&B or accommodation with half board, often have lunch or dinner in typical tourism restaurant. There have been no official meetings or other efforts to initiate any intercultural encounters.
One German coach of South African origin organised some meetings between his German team and local sports groups (Johnson, personal communication, March 2016). The athletes visited a school, talked about ups and downs in the life of high-performance athletes, and gave some shoes to the young athletes. The athletes reported they liked the interaction and described it as eye-opening. Still, it was mentioned that organising these activities parallel to the training camp was a lot of work. Furthermore, these isolated visitations to local communities or schools lack continuity so there effects are not clear.
Another coach described the exotic atmosphere of South Africa as being an attraction and incentive for his athletes to come and train in Stellenbosch (Thomaskamp, personal communication, March 2016). However, he indicated that he did not want the exotic opportunities to be too close to the training venue because their attraction might disturb the athletes’ concentration and focus on their sport.
These comments from two coaches indicate that there is some interest in social encounters with local people. But these encounters have to be planned and organised in a way that they influence athletes in a positive way and do not distract or upset them.
In order to find out about athletes’ willingness to participate in community activities, they were asked in which activities they would join as part of their leisure time programme in a future training camp. Apart from volunteer work athletes showed a willingness to participate in common activities with local athletes and teenagers. They also indicated that they were interested in learning more about South Africa in general and about Stellenbosch specifically. This was confirmed by their searching for information before they travel to Stellenbosch, e.g. asking coach or other athletes who have been before, and using websites.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 279 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 3: Willingness to participate in programme (n= 20)
Future Activity Willingness
Signing session 4.5
Training with local athletes 4.1
Township tour 4.0
Training with local teenagers 3.9
Talk in school about sport 3.9
Measured using a 6 point scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 6 = extremely likely)
Before making suggestions for any new programs for the visiting teams, visitor satisfaction should be considered in order to increase the probability that they will come back. Findings from on-site research and the online survey completed in this research, revealed some areas of serious concern:
1. The stadium is sometimes so crowded with international athletes that training conditions deteriorate. When javelin throwers are joining, it can even be dangerous. Due to some University events the gym is sometimes not available for training.
2. The maintenance of stadium and facilities is described as inefficient. The condition of the high jump mat and of the long jump pit is poor. Holes in the lawn are an injury risk. The state of the locker rooms and sanitary facilities are not meeting expectations. Sometimes the gate to the stadium is locked and the team had to climb over the gate to train because there was no one available at the track to open the gate.
3. Due to traffic congestion, going from one place to another in Stellenbosch takes more time than it used to. This creates stress, especially for coaches who are working with different athletes who may be staying in different accommodation.
4. Stellenbosch is so popular that it is sometimes too crowded. The atmosphere seems to change from a secret and exclusive paradise to a tourism hotspot. This might lead to disappointment, especially for persons who have stayed there quite often over a number of years, e.g. coaches and officials. Because they are decision makers about selection of the team’s training destination, Stellenbosch should consider ways to manage their discontent such as a strategy to create added value.
5. Some local athletes and students who normally use the stadium complained that they had no access to it when the international teams were there.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 280 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The following recommendations are made based on the information gathered in this case study.
Recommendations
1. Develop a strategy to analyse, assess, and monitor sports tourism in Stellenbosch. One important aspect is visitor satisfaction. If the number of teams continue to increase and there are no management strategies to guarantee quality facilities and access to proper training times, satisfaction will decrease and then particular the German and other European teams are likely to stop coming. The maintenance of the athletic grounds and facilities, e.g. high jump and long jump pit, must be guaranteed. Furthermore, Stellenbosch has no longer the advantage of being a secret paradise where weaknesses are forgiven.
2. With global warming, there are many new warm weather training destinations being developed and many are much closer to Europe than Stellenbosch is. In order to guarantee a long term success and sustainability of sport tourism, it is recommended that someone at Stellenbosch University takes responsibility for visiting teams and provides the all-important personal touch and excellent communication. Because the athletics facility, sport grounds and gymnasium are central to the training of the athletes, it is suggested that this responsibility be located within Maties Sport who is the custodian of all of these facilities.
3. Develop an education and experience package for sports training teams. The package should include material to prepare the teams, to organise meetings/workshops and to reflect experiences (cf. UNESCO, 2010). Local residents should also be informed about the sports teams and they should be encouraged to provide their thoughts about what kinds of interactions would be mutually enjoyable.
4. Define a responsible unit and/or a caretaker for the relationship with the region. One option is Stellenbosch 360, Stellenbosch’s destination management organisation. They already offer packages aiming at initiating interaction between locals and visitors, e.g. dining with locals and a township tour. A practical approach would be to assess responsibility of the existing packages and develop new packages especially for sports teams in a participatory approach. In addition continuous communication should be initiated in order to find out about expectations and satisfaction.
Economic Issues
The main economic criteria for responsible tourism are to
a) “Generate greater economic benefits for local people”
b) “Enhance the well-being of host communities”, and
c) ”Improve working conditions and access to the industry” (Cape Town Declaration,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 281 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
2002).
Sports tourism accesses the typical tourism infrastructure plus high-end training facilities such as a fully equipped stadium, a gym and physiotherapy. This demand for services generates possibilities for income and jobs.
When it comes to transportation, teams normally fly in with international airlines such as Lufthansa, Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways, or South African Airways. Besides the price criteria are special requirements regarding transport of javelins and poles or more comfortable seats. Some athletes described the flight as being too long. This is especially the case when two stop overs are necessary. This is a drawback for the destination. Fortunately, car rental is easily accessed. The preferred provider is Bidvest Car Rental, a South African company with divisions all around the country. Public transportation is not used.
Accommodation is an important element of the sports tourism value chain. In the last years the team preferences have changed from B&Bs and guesthouses to hotels (Protea Techno Park) due to the limited capacity of the former. Protea Hotels is the leading hotel group in Africa. In 2014 it sold its hotel marketing, management and franchise business to Marriott International. In the debate on economic impact on destinations, differences between small scale and large scale tourism are analysed. Large scale tourism and especially mass tourism is frequently related with high leakage rates (Weaver & Lawton, 2002). On the other hand it might be argued that larger hotels offer more and better job opportunities. These assumptions should be checked on the basis of the concrete destination. In order to involve smaller accommodations and make them attractive for larger groups a coordinator in Stellenbosch would be needed.
When it comes to opportunities apart from employment in accommodation, visiting coaches could contribute expertise to train-the-trainers programs which could offer educational opportunities for local coaches. Most of the German coaches are willing to support these programs unless it causes stress on their ability to fulfil their responsibilities for their athletes.
Local businesses already offer a variety of products and services. Many restaurants and galleries can be found in the city centre. Wineries and farms dominate the surrounding area. Using local goods and services could be promoted. It would be productive to understand the special interests of the different athletes from the different sports teams.
Finally, at the current exchange rate, staying in South Africa is quite inexpensive for European sports teams. For instance, prices for accommodation increased by plus 111.5% if paying in Rands (R350/per night and athlete in 2008 to R740/per night and athlete in 2016) but only by plus 22.4 % if paying in Euros (37.8 €/per night and athlete in 2008 to 46.25 €/per night and athlete in 2016). Renting a car is minus 37.4% in 2016 if paying in Euros. If the Rand gets stronger, the affordability of Stellenbosch will have to be checked. If airline fares increase, the sustainability of traveling to South Africa also may be negatively affected.
5. The economic impact of training camps should be evaluated in order to determine
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 282 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
options for expanding their value to the region. Local businesses should get the opportunity to learn about the needs of sports teams and to offer special products and services.
6. A long term strategy to encourage repeated visitations by teams for training camps is needed in order sustain sports tourism as a contributor to the University and regional economies. Environmental Issues
When it comes to environmental issues, reducing the carbon footprint by changing from high-consumption transportation to low-consumption transportation is the most commonly recognised criteria. Visitors from Europe to the Western Cape normally fly directly or with one or two stop overs and thus produce a high volume of emissions. In order to reduce the negative effects, tourists should at least stay 14 days in a destination that is more than 3,800 km away. It is also suggested that visitors should pay compensation. Regarding sports tourism in Stellenbosch, most of the teams stay long enough, but until now no compensation has been discussed. According to atmosfair, 144 € per person must be paid to offset the emissions of a return flight to Cape Town from Düsseldorf (atmosfair, 2016). This means 33,696 € for 234 athletes in one year a substantial amount of money when converted to Rands that could be invested into local projects.
As shown in table 2 the majority of teams rent cars and use them to get around in Stellenbosch and its surrounding. Normally, four athletes share one car. Due to increasing tourism in this region traffic congestion increases and during rush hours it sometimes takes twice the time to get to the stadium and back. An easy solution to reduce traffic would be to change accommodation and stay in a guesthouse or B&B near the stadium. As discussed before this might have positive economic impact as well.
Other environmental issues are energy conservation, water management, water security, water quality, wastewater, and solid waste reduction (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2013). Again the selection of the accommodation is important as features of the hotel, B&B, or guesthouse, e.g. the number of stars and services offered like saunas, swimming pools and air-conditioning, influence the amount of water and energy that is used. A substantial amount of water and energy is needed for the maintenance of the stadium, especially the lawn. Guidelines for organising environmentally sustainable events can be used as a reference as they include criteria for sports venues (BMU, 2007).
Due to the high number of service providers, an overall strategy for the whole destination is needed in order to define environmental criteria and indicators and apply them in order to help visitors to find out about the level of responsibility. Projects such as Carbon management for tour operators’ (CARMATOP) and related websites, e.g. BookDifferent, can be used for orientation.
7. Environmental impact has to be measured and monitored based upon a strategy for managing environmental issues. Checklists, e.g. Travelife, and certificates might help
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 283 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
to start the process. Still, the disclosure-performance gap should be considered (Font et al., 2012).
Conclusion
The paper has indicated opportunities for implementing responsible sports tourism in Stellenbosch that includes meaningful interaction between sports teams and locals. One prerequisite for this is that teams and local people get the chance to meet and share time together. Training together might be a good starting point.
Regarding policies it is still not possible to define a single responsible unit. In this respect, responsible tourism is not corporate responsibility in the usual sense, but rather the sharing of responsibilities among corporate and all other stakeholders in the sport tourist destination. The DLV, Stellenbosch University (Maties Sport) and Stellenbosch 360 could be a good team for this case of sport tourism. A trilateral agreement might be a statutory framework. The possibilities are interesting. For example, the DLV is charity partner of Plan International, an initiative to help children in developing countries that does not have a program in South Africa. This could be a direction to explore together.
Besides institutions, individuals are also accountable for promoting responsible tourism. As described before, coaches have a lot of influence. They should be involved in developing and implementing activities for their team members. On the other hand, limitations arise if coaches are not willing to support the interaction. Athletes do have to focus primarily on their training and as some coaches said, additional activities might have a distracting and negative effect.
Regarding economic and environmental issues a more precise analysis must be carried out in order to assess the actual situation. Then relevant goals, criteria, and indicators have to defined and monitored regularly. Due to increasing tourism in Stellenbosch and surrounding an overall strategy is needed to decide about the future. Some places are already too crowded and it has to be discussed how protect the special atmosphere that characterizes the region.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 284 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Accor Hotels (2015). Ethics and corporate social responsibility charter. Retrieved from: http://www.accorhotels- group.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Contenus_Accor/Commun/pdf/EN/accor_ethics _csr_charter_2015.pdf
Atmosfair (2016). CO2 emission calculator. https://www.atmosfair.de/en/home
Bieger, T. (2006). Management von Destinationen. 6th ed. München/Wien: Oldenbourg Verlag
BMU Bundesministerium Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2007). Green Champions für Sport und Umwelt. Retrieved from: http://www.dshs-koeln- natursport.de/
Coalter, F. (2002). Sport and Community Development: A manual. Retrieved from: www.sportscotland.org.uk
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122 – 144.
Commission of the European Communities (2001). Green Paper: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Online source. Retrieved from: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-01-9_en.pdf
Crompton, J. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sport facilities and events. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 14–35.
Crompton, J., Lee, S. K., & Shuster, T. (2001). A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: The springfest example. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 79–87.
DLV (2015). DLV-TopTeam läutet Olympia-Vorbereitung ein. Retrieved from: https://www.leichtathletik.de/news/news/detail/dlv-topteam-laeutet-olympia- vorbereitung-ein/
DOSB (2010). Integration durch Sport. Retrieved from: http://www.sportintegration.de/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/2011-DOSB_Programmkonzeption_IdS.pdf
Font, X., Walmsley, Cogotti, McCombes & Häusler (2012). Corporate social responsibility: the disclosure-performance gap. Leeds Metropolitan University. Retrieved from: www.icrtourism. org
Frey, J., & Eitzen, D., (1991). Sport and Society. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, 503- 522.
Frey, N., & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 285 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
business owners’ attitudes and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism Management, 31, 621–628.
Global Sustainable Tourism Council (2013). Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D) version 1.0 November 2013. Retrieved from: www.gstcouncil.org/sustainable-tourism-gstc-criteria/criteria-for- destinations.html.
GlobCit (2016). Workshop on Intercultural Competence and Global Citizenship. Htw saar. Unpublished documentation
Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change 12 (2002) 283–302
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. 2. A. New York
Gollub, J., Hosier, A., & Woo, G. (2003). Using Cluster-Based Economic Strategy to Minimize Tourism Leakages. Retrieved from: www.e- unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284406951
Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking Responsibility for Tourism. Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford.
Government of South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1996). White Paper: The development and promotion of tourism in South Africa. Retrieved from: http://www.tourism.gov.za/AboutNDT/Publications/Tourism%20White%20Paper.p df
Grootbos Private Nature Reserve (n.d.). Responsible Tourism. Retrieved from: http://www.grootbos.com/en/things-to-do/responsible-tourism.
Hall, C. (1992). Adventure, sport and health. In: Hall, C. & Weiler, B. (Eds.): Special interest tourism. London: p. 141-158.
Hall, D. & Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and sustainable community development. Routledge
Heuwinkel, K. (2015). Gesundheits- und Sporttourismus im ländlichen Raum. Tagungsband Konferenz Sport und Tourismus. DGT Schriftenreihe Band 19. „Tourismus und Freizeit“ im ESV-Verlag.
Homans, G. (1974): Elementary Forms of Social Behavior. Harcourt, New York
Lill, D. & Thomas, A. (2012). The contribution of a mega-event to the sustainable development of South African tourism. African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(10), pp. 3662-3672,14 March, 2012
Liu. Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 286 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
11, 459–475.
Lund-Durlacher, J. (2012). CSR und nachhaltiger Tourismus. In: Schneider, A. & Schmidpeter, R. (Hrsg.) Corporate Social Responsibility: Verantwortungsvolle Unternehmensführung in Theorie und Praxis (S. 559-570). Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Marriott (2015). Sustainability report. Retrieved from: https://www.marriott.com/corporate-social-responsibility/performance.mi
Mihalic, T., Zabkar, V., & Cvelbar, LK. (2012). Hotel sustainability business model: evidence from Slovenia. Journal Sustainable Tourism, 20 (5), 701-719.
Pomering, A. A., Noble, G. I. & Johnson, L. (2011). Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (8), 953- 969.
Republic of South Africa (2012a). Draft National Sport Tourism Strategy. Retrieved from: http://www.resonanceco.com/Library/national-sport-tourism-strategy/
Republic of South Africa (2012b). National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP). Retrieved from:
Richards, G. & Hall, D. (2000). The community: a sustainable concept in tourism development? In: Hall, D. & Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and sustainable community development. Routledge
Ritchie, J.R.B., & Crouch, G.I. (2000). The competitive destination: a sustainable perspective. Tourism Management. 21 (1), 1-7.
RIU (n.d.). Achievements 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from: https://www.riu.com/en/sustainability/documents.jsp
RTP (2002). Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism. Responsible Tourism Partnership. Retrieved from: www.capetown.gov.za
Spenceley, A., Relly, P., Keyser, H., Warmeant, P., McKenzie, M., Mataboge, A., Norton, P., Mahlangu, S., & Seif, J. (2002). Responsible Tourism Manual for South Africa, Department for Environmental Affairs and Tourism, July 2002.
Swart, K., Bob, U., Knott, B., & Salie, M. (2011): A sport and sociocultural legacy beyond 2010: A case study of the Football Foundation of South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 28:3, 415-428.
Turco, D., Papadimitriou, D., & Berber, S. (2010). International athletes as tourists: consumer behaviour by participants of the 2007 and 2009 World Universiade Games. Presented at the inaugural UNWTO/South Africa International Summit on Tourism, Sport and Mega-events, Johannesburg, South Africa, February 24.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 287 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Tyrrell, T., & Johnston, R. (2001). A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist events: Distinguishing origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 94–100.
UN (2015). Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision. Retrieved from: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/
UNESCO (2010). Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/index.html
UNWTO (n.d.). Be a responsible traveller. Retrieved from: www.bearesponsibletraveller.org/
UNWTO (1993). Sustainable tourism development: A guide for local planners. Retrieved from: www.unwto.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html.
UNWTO (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations. A Guidebook. United Nations World Tourism Organisation, Madrid.
UNWTO (2010). International Summit on Tourism, Sport and Mega-events. Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from http://summit.ersvp.co.za/pages/default.asp
Uysal, M., Sirgy, M., Woo, E., & Kim, H. (2015). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management 53 (2016) 244 – 261.
W2Consulting (2015). Economic analysis of mass participation. Retrieved from: http://w2.ie/national-mass-participation-sport-tourism-monitor/
Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. (2002). Tourism Management. 2n Edition. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
Weber, M. (1984). Soziologische Grundbegriffe. Mohr Siebeck.
Weed, M. (2006). Sports Tourism and the Development of Sports Events. Retrieved from. www.idrottsforum.org
Weed, M. & Bull, C. (2009). Sports Tourism. Elsevier.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 288 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Towards Sustainable Tourism: What factors most influence decision makers in water-energy planning?
Arayeh Afsordegan*, Mar Vila *, Núria Agell *, Mónica Sánchez ^, Gerard Costa*
* ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, [email protected]
* ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelna, Spain, [email protected]
* ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, [email protected]
^ Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain, [email protected]
* ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, [email protected]
*Acknowledgement: This research is partially funded by the Research Grant ACM2015_03 by the Campus of International Excellence Aristos Campus Mundus.
Key words: Tourism, Sustainability, Water-energy model, Water management
Introduction
Tourism is a major activity for some Mediterranean economies. While the growth of tourism over the last few decades has had many positive effects, it has also harmed the environment when this growth has not been planned in a sustainable way. The analysis of influential factors can help in designing advanced planning and management solutions for sustainable tourism in these areas (Chan & Lam, 2010). Such solutions will confer economic, social and environment benefits on both locals and tourists.
Tourism has environmental impacts on energy consumption, water consumption, pollution and waste outputs (water quality and air quality). Water and energy are needed to maintain the gardens and landscaping of hotels and attractions and is embodied in tourism infrastructure development, food and fuel production (Bramwell, & Lane, 2012; Pegas and Castley 2014). Within the accommodation sector, private homes, hotels, camp sites and other tourist establishments are the main contributors to energy and water use (Gössling et al., 2012). In particular, the impact of tourism on water availability and water quality is dependent on a wide range of factors, such as the relative abundance and quality of water in the respective tourism region. In order to diminish this negative impact of tourism, a clear way to increase sustainability is to implement a water re-use or desalination system (Stephen, Kent & Newnham, 2004; Chris & Sirakaya, 2006). To this end, an in-depth analysis
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 289 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
of the factors that most influence decision makers in water-energy planning is conducted in this study.
Aim
There is a wide range of factors that have a big impact on sustainable tourism. These factors may be qualitative or quantitative and focus on economic, social or environmental aspects (Gossling, 2015). In this paper, we analyse how these factors affect decision-making when using water-energy planning models.
Optimisation models to analyse the use of energies and water consumption rely on the right choice of the influential factors. These models have received growing attention not only from the research community but also from those in the tourism industry and business fields.
The main aim of this study is twofold. On the one hand, to extract these relevant factors from experts and stakeholders and, on the other hand, to model a real water-energy case of a tourist destination in the Costa Brava (Catalonia, Spain) focusing on tourism activities (which are of the main sources of income in the area). Method
In this study, simulations yield intuitive results to represent realistic features and real trends in water-energy systems. The output from these simulations allows one to make forecasts and model urban shortcomings regarding water re-use and waste water treatment.
For these purposes, in-depth interviews with key persons in a tourist region (the Costa Brava) are conducted to form the empirical basis of this paper. Technical experts in water companies, members of municipalities who know about the regulations and other stakeholders such as hotel managers are asked for the most important factors in our water- energy model. The use of a qualitative Delphi technique allows experts and stakeholders to reach an agreement on the key features of a given topic (Agell et al., 2015). This technique allows us to capture the inherent imprecision existing in some experts’ assessments about qualitative variables. This method is applied in the real water-energy case of a village called "El Port de la Selva" in the north of Costa Brava (Catalonia, Spain). Findings
The study of the "El Port de la Selva" case will yield a set of key factors, based on expert’s knowledge in two levels. Firstly, on a quantitative level, we consider the following factors: investment costs, operation costs, water losses and energy consumption as essential indicators to measure each alternative. Secondly, on a qualitative level, considering the following social factors: environmental impacts, social acceptance, and availability of funds or loans, among other environmental and social aspects.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 290 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Our study will help planning departments to find a model to optimize water-energy management taking into account the relevant technical, economic, environmental, political and social factors. Table 1 shows the final list of factors which are selected from different rounds of answering questions by group of panellists and technicians.
Table 1: Final factors considered
QUALITATIVE DEFINITION VARIABLES
FINANCIAL VIABILITY The available fund or money standards and regulations. It means that if in the proposed alternative there is any fund and regulations to incentive and motivate for investment or not.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK Is related to negative environmental impacts and environmental risk analysis to consider.
CO2 EMISSION How much emission produce by each alternative?
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE Public understanding of the safety and applicability of proposed solution which means that to develop water re- used, desalination or transfer, an understanding of the social and cultural aspects is required. For instance, re-used projects can fail for lack of social support. Even for non-potable re-use purposes, public attitudes such as perception of water quality and willingness to pay to accept the waste water re-use project play an important part.
TOURIST SATISFACTION How much tourists are satisfying by each alternative.
GREEN IMAGE How much the alternative makes green image on public especially on tourist who are looking for sustainable cities and services.
STAKEHOLDER The acceptance of alternative from stakeholder`s point of ACCEPTANCE view.
PUBLIC HEALTH Considering pollutions and negative impacts on human health.
These factors will be considered to define alternatives for a multi-criteria decision-making tool that will be designed to support municipalities in sustainable water-energy planning.
Regarding to expert`s preferences in this region, four scenarios are presented for additional water needed during high water demand seasons:
• Business as usual (Involves some water re-use)
• Additional re-used water
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 291 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
• Desalination
• Transfer water from Costa Brava
One of the advantages of decisions such as re-use water will be primarily driven by the green image and getting some sort of green certification such as LEED for hotels. In order to get certified several levels and steps are required. The payoffs are of course recognition the certification and the corresponding increasing in certain types of customers. Conclusion
A general concern in the Mediterranean is water availability due to increasing water shortages. Tourism is one of the areas that need to be taken into account to manage water resources more efficiently. In this study, we analyse influential factors for a water-energy model that may help decision makers to establish strategies in the Costa Brava, Catalonia’s biggest tourist area. Many strategies can be chosen in the light of these key factors, not only from both the social and environmental standpoints but also as a way to attract customers who find ‘green’ features appealing.
In the first phase of this study, quantitative and qualitative factors which have the most influence to decisions in water-energy planning have been presented. Then in the second phase, in future work, a comparative analysis of different scenarios with respect to these indicators using multi-criteria decision aiding tools will be performed.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 292 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Agell, N., Ganzewinkel C.J., Sánchez, M., Rosellóc, L., Prats F. & Andriessen, P. (2015). A consensus model for Delphi processes with linguistic terms and its application to chronic pain in neonates definition. 35.942-948.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (2012). Towards innovation in sustainable tourism research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 20 (1). 1- 7.
Chan W. & Lam J. (2010). Energy-saving Supporting Tourism Sustainability: A Case Study of Hotel Swimming Pool Heat Pump. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 11(1). 74-83.
Chris Choia, H. & Sirakaya E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management. 27.1274-1289.
Gössling, S., Peeters P., Hall, M., Ceron J.P., Dubois, G., Lehmann, V. & Scott, D. (2012). Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management, 33.1-15.
Gossling, S. (2015). New performance indicators for water management in tourism. Tourism Management. 46. 233-244.
Pegas, F. & Castley, G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 22(4). 604- 625.
Stephen, E., Kent, M. & Newnham, R. (2004). Tourism Development in Mallorca: Is Water Supply a Constraint? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (1). 4-28.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 293 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Rural communities’ participation in the planning and management of tourism developments: a case study from Lesotho
Limpho Lekaota (Dr)
Department of Hospitality and Tourism, Vaal University of Technology, [email protected]
Keywords: rural tourism management, communities’ participation, Lesotho
Abstract
This study analysed the perceptions of local communities’ participation in planning and management tourism using the mixed method design. The local rural communities and local authorities (nature reserve managers, tourism officers, environmental/conservation officers and Conservation Committee Forum members) in the Katse and Mohale Tourism Development Area of Lesotho were surveyed. The study was conducted in three villages adjacent to the T’sehlanyane Nature Reserve - Ha ‘Mali, Bokong Nature Reserve - Ha Lejone and Liphofung Nature Reserve - Phelandaba. These villages are mostly affected by tourism developments.
Respondents from all three villages (Ha Lejone, Ha ‘Mali and Phelandaba) shared the same preferences of greater communities’ involvement and decision-making power in the management of tourism. Ha ‘Mali and Ha Lejone respondents recognized community members’ participation but the Phelandaba respondents generally disagreed that the communities were involved in management, as they indicated not being consulted in any planning about tourism.
The study concludes that government should not merely construct conservation and tourism development in the rural areas but should also empower local communities to participate in all stages of planning, development and management. Involving community members in as well as formulating supporting tourism regulations, implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures would be beneficial for sustainable rural tourism development. The researcher recommended that there should be partnerships amongst all tourism-related stakeholders in rural tourism management for promotion of rural tourism. It also recommended that local communities should form part of decision marking, planning and management of rural tourism developments in order to promote sustainability.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 294 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Introduction
Rural tourism development, like any other business, needs to be managed. One important aspect of rural tourism management is to have a specific focus on local people to participate and work in tourism developments. Local participation in tourism is usually referred to as functional management and can be seen as part of strategic management (Mason, 2008:104). Mason argues further that tourism management is also concerned with ways to manage the resources for tourism, the interaction of tourists with physical resources and the interaction of tourists with residents of tourist areas. This focus of tourism management is concerned primarily with tourism impacts in tourism destinations. This study is built on the collaboration theory. Issues of coordination, collaboration and partnership are now at the forefront of much tourism research on finding new solutions to resource management and destination development problems (Hall, 1999:274).The inclusion of local communities at all management levels of tourism destinations could solve problems in tourism developments. A community approach to tourism planning is an attempt to formulate a bottom-up form of planning (Hall & Page, 1999:252). The community approach emphasizes development in the community rather than development of the community. Researchers have indicated that when local stakeholders have had an opportunity to participate in the management and planning process from the very beginning, they have more positive opinions regarding the development of their area than those who have not participate in the planning process (see Simmons 1994, Jamal & Getz 1995, Page & Thorn 1997).
The idea of sustainability has become an important policy issue in tourism management and development (Saarinen et al., 2009:77). Many tourism-planning scholars agree that sustainable tourism development can best be accomplished by involving local residents in decision-making of tourism, and by collaboration among various stakeholders in decision- making matters (see Timothy, 2001:149). Community participation should be a shared decision-making process at all levels of the programmes, such as setting goals, formulating policies, planning and implementation (Butler, Hall & Jenkins, 1998) and having a high degree of control or ownership of the tourism activities and resources (Hall & Page, 1999:195; Saarinen, 2006:1130). It is very important to consider local participation as the success and failure on any rural tourism development depend on local communities.
Recognizing the importance of community participation as part of tourism management, the present study aims to analyse the perceptions on rural communities’ participation or involvement in the planning and management of tourism development in selected areas in Lesotho, The respondents of this study are the local communities, local authorities, nature reserve managers, tourism officers, Conservation Committee Forum members and environmental/conservation officers. The sections that follow are problem statement, research objective and hypothesis, literature review, research methodology, results, managerial applications and conclusions.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 295 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Research objectives and or/hypotheses
This study is guided by the following objective:
• To examine the perceptions of local community’ participation amongst local communities, local authorities, nature reserve managers, tourism officers, Conservation Committee Forum members and environmental/conservation officers;
In order to appropriately guide this research, the hypothesis formulated is based on the existing research literature and Lesotho government tourism policy and documents. The hypothesis will be further argued in the literature review and description of the study sites. The specific hypothesis for this study is:
• Communities perceive involvement in tourism management as essential in improving their participation. Literature review Community participation in tourism
Community participation in tourism is a major issue facing governments. Community participation refers to a form of voluntary action in which individuals confront the opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship (Tosun, 1999:217). The opportunities for such participation include joining in the process of self-governance, responding to authoritative decisions that impact on one’s life, and working co-operatively with others on issues of mutual concern (Tosun, 1999). Literature shows that being a community member and being invited to participate do not automatically give a resident/participant easy access to getting his/her issues addressed. Indeed, the right to participate does not always equal the capacity to participate (Bramwell & Lane, 2000:172).
Rural tourism and community-based tourism share community resources in destinations and both need to promote community participation. Community participation is considered necessary to obtain community support and acceptance of tourism development projects (Tosun & Timothy, 2003:5). Nevertheless, citizens tend to participate only when strongly motivated to do so, which requires their ideas to be considered, otherwise community participation may be demotivated (Tosun, 2000:625).
Issues of participation, collaboration and partnership are at the forefront of tourism research trying to find new solutions to the problems of resource management and destination development (Hall, 1999:274; Hall, 2008). Community participation should be also combined with and related to sustainable tourism. It is clear that community participation has become an indispensable part of sustainable tourism development (Tosun & Timothy, 2003:6). However, planners rush to involve various publics in their work, but some do so without full consideration of the progress of public participation techniques employed in other aspects (Tosun, 2000:613). Moreover, many authors support greater public participation while few have tested or evaluated the appropriateness of methods to
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 296 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
secure local residents’ interest (Gunn, 1988:116; Simmons, 1994:98).
The rationale for community participation in tourism is that it can reduce potential conflict between tourists and members of the host community (Mason, 2008:120; Aramberri & Butler, 2005:13). When communities are participating, the constraints that confuse befuddle their involvement are identified and the difficulties facing public participation are discussed, as well as some provisional action steps (Haywood, 1988:105).
In consideration of the importance of community participation or involvement, negative issues regarding participation are also researched. Researchers indicate that there are some difficulties associated with participation of community members in the planning process in developing countries. Community participation has some challenges, as local communities that have to participate in tourism may lack information on the operational and necessary equipment for tourism. Related to this, Nyaupane et al., (2006:1374) have identified some limitations of community participation in tourism management which are (i) local communities may not have the investment capital, know-how or infrastructure necessary to take the initiative in developing tourism, (ii) local communities may have cultural limitations to involvement in the planning and management of tourism, (iii) tourism may be a concept difficult to grasp by people living in isolated rural communities, and (iv) members of the host community may feel that it is the government’s duty to plan economic development opportunities for their region and that it would not be appropriate for them to take the initiative. In addition, Hall and Page (1999:252) have identified seven impediments to incorporating public participation in tourism planning, but this study focused only on the following: the public are not always aware of or do not understand the decision-making process; there may be difficulty in attaining and maintaining representatives in the decision- making process; the decision-making process would be prolonged and there may be adverse effects on the efficiency of decision-making.
Tourism planning
Proper tourism planning is a core of success in any rural tourism development. Sound planning is widely viewed as a way of maximizing the benefits of tourism in an area while mitigating problems that might occur because of development (Timothy, 1999:371, 2001:149; Myburgh & Saayman, 2002:215). Members of the community should be involved in any tourism planning aimed at promoting sustainable tourism. According to Simmons (1994:98), the public has a right to participate in the planning activities that affect their daily life.
Involving local communities in tourism planning is now a widely accepted principle in democratic countries. Tourism planning is a decision-making process aimed at guiding future tourism development actions and solving future problems, and a process of selecting objectives and deciding what should be done to achieve them (Williams, 1998:126; Myburgh & Saayman, 2002:215). Planning is regarded as a very important part of the process by which tourism is managed by governments at the national, local and organizational levels (Elliot, 1997:116). Planning for tourism deals with a variety of forms, structures and scales,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 297 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
thus the term “tourism planning” does not merely refer specifically to the development and promotion of tourism, although these are certainly important in tourism planning (Cooper et al., 1998:208; Hall & Page, 1999:249).
Tourism planning is conducted with consideration of other aspects related to tourism such as the country’s economy and land-use planning. Tourism is affected extensively by many aspects of planning, such as the national government’s economic planning; sectorial planning and land-use planning, which are often applied to tourist venues or national parks, and rural development (Elliot, 1997:116). Planning can also been seen as on-going process that complies with a country’s policies. In many ways, planning may be regarded as going hand-in-hand with tourism policy (Hall, 1994:35). The important role of policy-making and implementation in private and public agencies from regional to local areas is for the involvement in preparing and taking action on tourism (Gunn, 2002:1). There are a number of reasons why policy-making in tourism should involve local communities in drafting policies for their region. Community participation is premised upon shared decision-making at all levels of the preparation of programmes: setting goals, formulating policies, planning and implementation (Wisansing, 2000:47; Nyaupane, Morais & Dowler, 2006:1374). Public participation in both the planning process and the implementation of the policy is important, considering the fact that tourism development occurs in existing places with socio-cultural and political environments.
Planning has a number of objectives, which involve the inclusion of local communities in decision-making and coordination. Tourism planning has a number of key objectives: for example, the creation of a mechanism for the structured provision of tourist facilities over quite large geographic areas, and the coordination of the fragmented nature of tourism (Williams, 1998). There has recently been a shift in traditional tourism planning patterns and research. Planning has moved from narrow concerns with physical planning and tourism promotion aimed at the masses, and planning research now aims at a more balanced approach that supports the development and promotion of more sustainable or alternative forms of tourism (Timothy, 2001:149). The literature shows that this new direction of planning which protects developments and promotes sustainability can only be achieved through community involvement in planning. Rural tourism management
Tourism management is defined as “strategies and action programmes using and coordinating available techniques to control and influence tourism supply and visitor demand in order to achieve defined policy goals” (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998:84). Tourism management term is also used to denote the processes through which a small and medium tourism enterprise tries to maintain and improve its ability to create and distribute value by co-ordinating the interaction of participants in the activities of the business as a system (Sanchez & Heene, 2004:114). Like any other business, rural tourism businesses need a formalized strategy or approach to be used during implementation and operation.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 298 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Literature indicates that rural tourism management clarifies the need to consider the host or resident population in management. The residents should be regarded as active participants in the process of tourism development. If locals participate they are most probably will benefit financially from the tourism industry. Tourism is supposed to raise incomes of locals. Local communities as part of stakeholders should form part of destination management, and management has many responsibilities at local level (Elliott, 1997:137; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005:1275). Management at local level include coordination or direction taken by different stakeholders in managing tourism. The lack of coordination within the highly fragmented tourism industry is a problem well known to destination planners and managers (Jamal & Getz, 1995:186). It is important for a coordination strategy to be drafted to guide tourism businesses. Research methodology
A survey questionnaire and interview methods of data collection were used to conduct this study. The study was conducted in three villages around the parks: Ha-‘Mali (Ts’ehlanyane nature reserve), Phelendaba (Liphofung nature reserve) and Ha-Lejone (Bokong nature reserve). The sampling frame comprised the community members and local authorities of villages, which are closest to the park, employees of Northern Parks of Lesotho and Conservation Committee Forum (CCF) members from the three villages, as they are well informed about the parks’ operations. Convenience sampling whereby respondents that were willing to participate in the study were used amongst community members by self- selection of 278 respondents who were willing to participate in the study. Purposive sampling was used for parks employees and CCF members. The study population was 1163, which was justified by Census Lesotho 2008; and the information on the population was received from Census Lesotho after the fieldwork had been conducted.
Appointments with representative bodies were made telephonically and personally through the Parks Manager at Northern Parks’ head office in Butha-Buthe in order to arrange interviews. The Parks Manager encouraged the researcher to contact CCF members for interviews on the day they would be having their monthly meeting in the parks, as all would be at one place. Questionnaires were designed to collect data from various parks employees and community members, while interviews were designed to collect data from CCF members.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were followed in conducting this study in order to compare the findings from the two methods and assess the validity of the results of research. The study utilised a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to seek views from respondents. The analysis of coded data was conducted with the use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Hypotheses (H0 and H1) were used to state whether there was a statistically significant or no significant differences on opinions between the respondents. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used for the statistical calculated variance ratio (F) and probability (P). The t-test was used as well to determine if the respondents from different villages had statistically significantly different perceptions of tourism.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 299 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The cross-tabulations were applied to quantify the statistical differences noted among respondents using Chi-squared statistics and Cramer’s V. The open-ended questions and interview responses were grouped by themes and used to explain the statistical relationships. The use of cross-tabulation was also intended to identify any similarities or differences in the analysed data and relate the findings to the literature in order to draw conclusions.
Results
The questionnaire contained six items in management of tourism. All six items were characterised by having high standard deviations indicating disagreement among the respondents. All six items had their scales inverted and then each one of Q1, Q3 and Q5 were removed as their MSA values were still below 0.6. This left only three items in the factor with a KMO value of 0.677 and Bartlett’s sphericity of p<0.005. Hence, the resulting PCA with varimax rotation resulted in one factor only, which explained 63.98% of the variance present. It had a Cronbach alpha of 0.718.
The mean score of 3.96 and median of 4.00 should be interpreted against the inversion of the scales. Respondents thus disagreed with the items in the management of tourism factor. Items Q1 (the community is involved in planning), Q3 (community representatives participate in the formulation supporting tourism regulations) and Q5 (assessment and evaluation are done by the community) were all answered unreliably and had mean scores indicating neutral opinions, which are often found in items which may have political connotations and as such are viewed with suspicion. They were, however, removed from the factor analytic procedure. Testing the direct income from tourism groups regarding the management of tourism
Table 1 shows the hypothesis test summary. The data distribution in Figure 1 indicates a negatively skew distribution of data and hence non-parametric procedures were utilized in the analysis of the independent groups. The relevant data is also given in Figure 1.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 300 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
The distribution of Management of Independent- Reject the null 1 tourism is the same across Samples Mann- .000 hypothesis. categories of F40A. Income 2010. Whitney U Test
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
Figure 1: The data for the two received income groups with respect to the management of tourism
The relevant values are U= 12593.00; Z=3.774; p<0.0005; r = 0.22. Bearing the scale inversion in mind, the respondents who indicated that they had received some income from tourism agreed more strongly (X Yes = 3.66) than the group who indicated that they had not
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 301 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
received any income from tourism (X No = 4.11) with respect to the management of tourism. It thus appears as if the management of tourism and income received are positively associated with one another. Significance of differences between the positions occupied groups with respect to the management of tourism.
The respondents concerned with managing tourism had a mean score of 3.39 whilst the community respondents had a mean score of 4.00. Respondents occupying management positions agreed more strongly with the management of tourism than did community members. As these members in management positions are concerned with the daily management of tourism and are acquainted with both advantages and disadvantages of tourism. A positive response was predicted although a value of 3.39 can be interpreted as partial agreement. The non-parametric values were U= 4216.50; Z= 2.622; p= 0.009; r = 0.15. Significant differences between three or more independent groups regarding the management of tourism
Reponses were from three categories namely Ha Mali (101), Phelandaba (82) and Ha Lejone (118). These there groupings are likely to see the management of resources differently and the results of the Kruskal-Wallis (H) test are provided below
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
The distribution of Independent- Reject the Management of tourism is 1 Samples Kruskal- .000 null the same across categories Wallis Test hypothesis. of F42.Village stay.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 302 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 2: The hypothesis for the three village groups with respect to the management of resources
The data in Figure 2 indicates that the null hypothesis cannot be accepted because the three groups differ statistically significantly regarding their mean scores when considered together, The Kruskal-Wallis H value of 29.91 has a significant p-value (p<0.0005). Thus, the three village groups do differ but one would need to do a pair-wise comparison to see which groups differ from which. However, if one observes the graph in Figure 3 it seems as if the difference lies between the median value of Ha Mali and Phelandaba and Ha Mali and Ha Lejone. The pair-wise comparisons are given in Figure 3.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 303 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Figure 3: The pair-wise comparison of the three village groups regarding the management of tourism.
The main difference in mean ranks and in median scores is between Ha ‘Mali and Ha Lejone (Z=-4.913; p<0.0005; r = 0.28). The second largest difference is between Ha ‘Mali and Phelandaba (Z=-4.506; p<0.0005; r = 0.26). There is statistically no significant difference in factor mean scores between Ha Lejone and Phelandaba. As the scale was inverted, respondents from Ha Mali (X = 3.48) agreed more strongly with the management of tourism than did respondents from Ha Lejone (X = 4.20) and respondents from Phelandaba (X = 4.21) both of whom could be said to disagree with the management of tourism factor. The negative view of the Phelandaba residents is also corroborated by the findings in Section below where the semi-structured interviews with the CCF members were analysed.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 304 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In the case of qualitative data, the respondents were from three different villages. There were 42 CCF members and the researcher divided them randomly into six groups, 2 groups per village. Answers indicate a lack of effective human resource management on the side of Government employees. Expand further on this. The participants believed that cooperative planning was lacking and that unfair selection and recruitment activities occurred.is there suspected nepotism, expand further on this. It seems as if the community believe that the Government is responsible for managing tourism activities and hence it is appropriate to apportion blame to someone else. This leads to “the enemy is out there syndrome” (Senge, 1997: 19). The enemy is out there is a consequence of finding someone or something to blame when things go wrong, and is typically associated with a hierarchical mechanistic management style. The theory of collaboration came about partially because of the disadvantages associated with this bureaucratic management style and it emphasises the advantages of including all persons in decisions, which could influence them.
Thus, tourism is associated with contradictory consequences and for each potential benefit; there is a potential detriment as is clearly reflected in both the qualitative and quantitative data analyses. This dialectical view of change thus involves effective management of both dimensions; maximising the potential benefits whilst attempting to remove or minimise the contradictory elements. Conclusion
Tourism management should closely involve the government, the private sector and the host community at the destination. Leaving any of these parties out could give rise to problems with sustainability. The communities should be included in the planning of rural tourism development. The researcher’s recommendation is to involve communities in KMTDA management. Community members of Ha ‘Mali know the areas which could be dangerous to tourists; those could not be known to park workers as they are not originally from that area. Involvement in management promotes interest and participation among communities because they feel that they are becoming part of the tourism development. In the KMTDA, not all stakeholders are involved in management and planning. This creates a problem because it leads to a misunderstanding of how the parks should operate. Involving communities in the management would reduce the present negative attitude view of tourism and help communities to understand that rural tourism developments cannot employ each one in the villages, although in some jobs they could rotate.
Communities should be involved in management, ensuring that all issues concerning communities are taken into account during tourism development. Active public participation in decision-making benefits local communities and public participation is an important tool for successful tourism (Azizan et al., 2012: 585). Partly because of the problems that may arise from contact between tourists and communities in developing countries, and in an attempt to ensure greater benefit to host communities, there has been a focus recently on community participation in tourism management, planning and development (Mason, 2008:167). Public involvement in tourism is currently an essential element of tourism planning and design
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 305 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The engaging of all stakeholders is crucial to every tourism development effort; as it promotes sustainability of rural tourism developments. Tourism developers have an obligation to let the local public know about their plans and become involved, because this could promote their interest. Local people have the right to participate in management of tourism projects, which affect them, and experience in tourism has shown that the role of dialogue across a wide spectrum of direct and indirect stakeholders is especially important (Messerli, 2011:335).
The researcher’s recommendation is that the local communities should be involved in both the decision-making and the operation of the nature reserves. Studies in both developing and developed countries indicate that the success of a destination would largely depend on the support and engagement of the local community in management (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007:317). The researcher recommended that there should be partnerships amongst all tourism-related stakeholders in rural tourism management for promotion of rural tourism. It also recommended that local communities should form part of decision marking in planning and management of rural tourism developments in order to promote sustainability.
References
Aramberri, J. & Butler, R. (2005) Tourism Development: Issues for a vulnerable industry. London: Cromwell Press.
Azizan, M., Iain, H. & Jane, J. (2012) Public participation shortcomings in tourism planning: the case of the Langkawi Islands Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(4), pp. 585-602.
Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in local tourism policy making. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2), pp. 392-415.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (2000)Tourism collaboration and partnership: politics, practice and sustainability. London: Biddles Ltd.
Butler, R., Hall, M. C. & Jenkins, J. (1998) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (2007) Tourism and indigenous people: issues and implications. 1st edition. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Choi, H.C. & Sirakaya, E. (2005) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management 27(1), pp. 1274-1289.
Cole, S. (2006) Information and empowerment: the keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism 14(6), pp. 629-633.
Cooper, J. F., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. (1998) Tourism: principles and practice. 2nd edition.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 306 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
London: Prentice Hall.
Coopers, C. (2012) Essentials of tourism. 1st edition. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Dredge, D. & Jenkins, J. (2007) Tourism planning and policy. 1st edition. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.
Elliott, J. (1997) Tourism: politics and public sector management. London: Routledge.
Faulkner, B. & Tideswell, C. (1997) A framework for monitoring community impacts to tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1), pp. 3-28.
Fox, W. and Bayat, M. S. (2007) A guide to Managing Research. 1st edition. Cape Town: Juta & Co. Ltd.
Gunn, C. A. (1988) Tourism Planning. 2nd edition. London: Taylor and Fransis.
Gunn, C. A. (2002) Tourism planning. 4th edition. Washington: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (1994) Tourism and politics: policy, power and place. 1st edition. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hall, C.M., & Page S.J. (1999) The geography of tourism and recreation: environment, place and space. London: Routledge.
Hall, D. & Richards, G. (2000)Tourism and sustainable community development, 1st edition. Harlow: Routledge.
Hall, C.M. (2008) Tourism Planning: policies, processes and relationships. 2nd edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Haywood, K.M. (1998) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management 9(2), pp. 105-118.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism planning: an integrated and sustainable development approach. Ottawa: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jamal, T. & Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22(1), pp. 186-204.
Mason, P. (2008) Tourism impacts, planning and management. 2nd edition. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Messerli, H.R. (2011) Transformation trough tourism: harnessing tourism as a development tool for improved livelihoods. Tourism Planning & Development 8(3), pp. 335-337.
Middleton, V.T.C. & Hawkins, R. (1998) Sustainable tourism: A marketing perspectives. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 307 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organisation. London: SAGE Publication.
Mouton, J. (2008) How to succeed in your Masters and Doctorial Studies. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Myburgh, E. & Saayman, M. (2002) Ecotourism in action: Practical Guidelines and Principles. 2nd edition. Potchfstroom: Leisure Consultants and Publications.
Murphy, P.E. & Murphy, A.E. (2004) Strategic management for tourism communities: bridging the gaps. Ottawa: Channel View Publications.
Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, B.D. and Dowler, L. (2006) The role of community involvement and number/type of visitors on tourism impacts: A controlled comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Northwest Yunna, China. Tourism Management 27(1), pp. 1373–1385.
Page, S.J. & Thorn, K.J. (1997) Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand: public sector planning responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1), pp. 59-77.
Prentice, R.C. (1993). Tourism and heritage. London: Routledge.
Saarinen, J. (2006) Contradictions of rural tourism initiatives in rural development context: Finnish Rural Tourism Strategy case study. Current Issues in Tourism 10(1), pp. 1-10.
Saarinen, J., Manwa, H., Becker, F. & Wilson, D. (2009) Sustainable tourism in southern Africa: local communities and natural resources in transition. London: Channel view publications.
Saarinen, J. (2011) Tourism, indigenous people and the challenge of development: the representations of Ovahimbas in tourism promotion and community perceptions towards tourism. Tourism Analysis 16(1), pp. 1-12.
Salazar, N.B. (2012) Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(1), pp. 9-22.
Sanchez, R. & Heene, A. (2004) The new strategic management: orgainsation, competition and competence. Chichester: Wiley Publishers.
Senge, M.P. (1997) The fifth discipline: Measuring Business Excellence. Emerald Insight 1(3), pp. 46-51.
Sharpley, R. (2002) Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Management 23(1), pp. 233-244.
Simmons, D.G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15(2), pp. 98-108.
Sinha, P.E. (2005) Ecotourism and mass tourism. New Delhi: Anmol Publication.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 308 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
South Africa. Western Cape Department of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Tourism (WCDEAT), (2001) Green paper on the management of provincial property 23rd May, 2001, Western Cape Province: South Africa.
Timothy, D.J. (1999) Participatory planning: A view of Tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2), pp. 371–391.
Timothy, D.J. (2001). Tourism and political boundaries, 1st edition, Ottawa: Routledge.
Torn, A., Siikamaki, P., Tolvanen, A., Kauppila, P. & Ramet, J. (2007) Local people, nature conservation and tourism in Northeastern Finland. Ecology and Society 13(1), pp. 8- 13.
Tosun, C. (1999) Analysis of contributions of international inbound tourism to the Turkey economy. Tourism Economics 5(3), pp. 217-250.
Tosun, C. & Timothy, D.J. (2003) Arguments for community participation in the tourism development process. The Journal of Tourism Studies 14(2), pp.1-15.
Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. (2011) Research at Grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. 4th edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publisher.
Williams, S. (1998) Tourism geography. London: Routledge.
Wisansing, J. (2000) Towards community driven tourism planning: a critical review of theoretical demands and practical issues, PhD thesis, London: Assumption University.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 309 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Modern Destination Management Organizations
Gabriela Estrella* & Myrta Zemp^ & Urs Wagenseil°
*Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland [email protected]
^Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland [email protected] °Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland [email protected]
Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility, Destination Management Organization, sustainable development, roles, responsibilities
Abstract
Looking at tourism as an industry affecting different stakeholders, the notion of responsibility is increasingly addressed by destinations. By embracing the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), destination management organizations (DMO) take responsibility for their actions towards their environment and stakeholders. A clear definition of a DMO’s area of responsibility however remains unclear. Results of a website analysis and expert interviews show that the DMOs are required to play a manifold role including but not limiting to leadership, support, education, motivation and being a role- model. This paper therefore presents theoretical contribution in terms of managerial roles of a DMO when engaging in CSR.
Introduction
As ecological or natural resources often present the focus of a tourism destination’s offer, it is of highest importance that these resources are to be protected. A decline in their value can have negative impact on the destination (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Tourism can produce adverse environmental and socio-cultural impacts, some of which may even be irreversible. An increase of societal and environmental concerns exerts growing pressure on destination management policies (Dodds & Joppe, 2005). These concerns have generated an extended debate. The tourism industry has responded to these challenges by applying the concept of sustainability. Sustainable tourism involves economic, ecological or social aspects and therefore is relevant for the resource management of a destination (UNESCO, 2009). Including similar elements, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been introduced to the tourism industry, which aims for companies taking responsibility for their actions towards their internal and external stakeholders (European Union, 2001). CSR is the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 310 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
voluntary contribution of business to sustainable development (Inoue & Lee, 2011).
However, tourism destinations are complex constructs that can be defined as several activated networks in space and time with several changing roles and responsibilities of actors (Beritelli, Reinhold, Laesser, & Bieger, 2015). Seeing a destination not only as a location, where tourism products are developed and offered, but also as a living space for locals, who can be affected by tourism, the concept of sustainable development is increasingly being applied to tourism destinations (Strasdas, 2012). As a destination is a multifaceted construct with many actors involved, a destination needs to be strategically managed by a DMO (Weber & Wehrli, 2015). Hereby, a DMO is considered being a leader to manage sustainable development at the destination level (Styles, Schönberger, & Galvez- Martos, 2013).
Sustainable development is considered to be a long-term process and should be treated on the level of the destination management. Positively managed, tourism has the potential contributing to sustainable growth. Generally, DMOs are considered to be role models due to the strong influence that they have as local authorities (Styles et al., 2013). In terms of sustainable development, the DMO has the central task to embed the topic of sustainability and its implementation within the internal strategies, structures and processes (Weber & Wehrli, 2015). Studies however have shown that many DMOs have an idea of their role(s) and responsibilities regarding sustainable development but in practice do not implement it accordingly (Wagenseil & Zemp, 2015). A good example is however set by destinations within the area of Baden-Württemberg (Germany), where the Ministry for Rural affairs has committed itself with a pilot project to protect and promote nature conservation, tourism and structural policies amongst local representatives and their partners. They apply the triangle vision, where tourism, nature conservation and land use interact successfully towards a quality destination (Baden-Wurttemberg, 2015). Many destinations within this area have been certified by the label TourCert, a label that certifies destinations, which clearly commit themselves to responsible tourism. In the case of Baden-Württemberg, the initiative was taken by the DMO that therefore acted as a leader of the process.
Apart from the example of the destinations in Baden-Württemberg, neither many destinations have committed themselves to engage in a CSR-approached development nor can much literature be found regarding the role of a Destination Management Organization when engaging in CSR as a destination. As a result, the role(s) of a DMO in terms of embracing CSR as a destination remain(s) unclear.
This paper aims for analyzing the role(s) a DMO should take when implementing the concept of CSR within a destination. Therefore, a three-folded research design has been used as the basis for understanding the role of CSR and DMOs. First, a review of the relevant literature on the concept of CSR in the tourism sector was conducted. Second, in order to follow the primary purpose of this study, a qualitative analysis of official DMO’s websites aimed to understand the notion of CSR in destinations was done; third, to provide validated results, expert interviews were performed. Triangulation of data was achieved in order to allow actual understanding and implementation of the CSR concept in a responsibility-taking
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 311 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
destination. Conclusively, this study therefore contributes to the following main research questions:
− Which role(s) should a DMO play when engaging in CSR as a destination?
In order to understand the significance of CSR and its state of the art in practice within the tourism industry, the following sub-questions will be answered:
− What is the role of CSR in the tourism sector?
− What do destinations already do and publish (online) in the field of CSR?
− What are the main challenges to apply CSR in the tourism industry? Literature review Corporate Social Responsibility
Initially, CSR was a subject and field of study situated at the interface between business and society. It has first been mentioned by Howard R. Bowen, who claimed that corporations should take social responsibility towards the society, as they take up their entitlements to social rights (Howard & Bowen, 1953). According to the widely accepted CSR model of Carroll (1979), the responsibility of corporations includes four different types: the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility. In relation to the CSR concept, stakeholder theory has been addressed with regard to responsibilities that should be taken towards stakeholders (see Freeman, 1984; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Nowadays, CSR is considered a fundamental concept to balance the impacts on economic, social and environment level with the business interests and the stakeholders (Hemingway, 2013). Hence, being socially responsible means to go beyond fulfilling legal expectations by considering compliance and investigation into human capital, the environment and the relationships with stakeholders (European Union, 2001). Global trends of CSR in tourism include welfare of employees, preservation of natural resources, technological innovations, sustainable products and mainly businesses with transparency and accountability towards their practices (Kapardis & Neophytidou, n.d.).
Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism
In terms of research, CSR in the tourism industry is still in its early stage (Coles, Fenclova, & Dinan, 2013). However, discussions about the management of environmental and social issues, namely CSR, have been discussed extensively. Oftentimes, the framework of sustainable tourism is mentioned, as the definitions of CSR and sustainability include similar elements (Dodds & Joppe, 2005).
As for sustainable tourism, the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) and European Commission suggest the following criteria for a sustainable destination to reach a common understanding: demonstration of a sustainable destination management, maximization of social and economic benefits for visitors, communities, minimization of negative impacts as
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 312 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
well as the protection of the environment (2016). Tourism operators and destinations have become increasingly more aware of the impacts that tourism can have on their own products. As a result, they have started to realize that resources, which often constitute the heart of the touristic offers, need to be protected for long-term business sustainability (Dodds & Kuehnel, 2010). Resources to be protected include landscapes, cultural heritage, culture, people, community and infrastructure, which are endangered by environmental risks such as pollution, garbage, sewage disposal, surface consumption, excess of energy consumptions and loss of biodiversity (Nicolae & Sabina, 2012). Consequently, it is crucial to maintain or enhance environmental conditions at the destination level (Styles et al., 2013).
While the concept of sustainable tourism mainly involves a balanced economic, social and cultural development without endangering the environment (Angelevska-Najdeska & Rakicevik, 2012), the concept of CSR relates to an organization’s obligation to be accountable to all its stakeholders regarding operations and activities. CSR can be considered as “an approach to business administration where (…) closer voluntary consideration of ethical, social and environmental issues as well as the organization’s varied stakeholders is taken in operations and value creation” (Coles et al., 2013, p. 122). In the tourism industry, CSR has mainly been implemented by intermediaries (e.g. tour operators), trade associations or non-governmental organizations. However, on the level of destinations, CSR has not been widely discussed.
Engaging in CSR does have many positive impacts on a business or destination. Werther & Chandler (2005) claim that CSR can act as a “brand insurance” (Werther & Chandler, 2005, p. 317) in order to prevent devastation of brand loyalty and consequently of brand image. Institutions or organizations are considered being embedded in a wider environment and therefore need to have a “social legitimacy” (2005, p. 318). The concept of networks is incorporated in the stakeholder theory of Freeman (1984). He raised the fact that all stakeholders need to be taken into consideration when operating, since they are all impacted by the firm’s purpose. In the context of tourism, DMOs play a major role managing the destination networks. However, being organizations, their operations can be also judged according to their organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Pechlaner, Volgger, & Herntrei, 2012). DMOs usually have either direct control or strong influence over the policies, destination plan, decisions, infrastructure and services. Only trough good communication and motivation, a DMO can indirectly influence the stakeholders and unite them under a coherent strategy (Bieger & Beritelli, 2013). Due to the fact that DMOs need to have strong relationships with their internal and external stakeholders, CSR plays a critical role in the tourism industry (Smith & Ong, 2014).
The role(s) of a DMO when engaging in CSR as a destination
Tourism has become a major element for the governments worldwide as it influences the legislation in favor of a broad social and economic development. By influencing the public policy, the growth of communities gets stimulated (Horner & Swarbrooke, 2008). The importance of destination management is growing rapidly due to the increasing competition to provide high quality of experience or the increasing assurance of managing the impacts of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 313 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
tourism on communities and environments. The destination management, often embodied by a DMO, is defined as public, private or public-private entity, whose aim is to plan, coordinate and foster the coalition of other organizations towards the development of a destination as a whole (World Tourism Organization, 2007). The DMO’s main characteristic is not to own the products but to manage and promote them. Therefore, the idea of tourism networks and collaboration between destination stakeholders is key to ensure destination competitiveness (European Union, 2001). The DMO role in general is defined as being a leader and coordinator of activities under a coherent strategy. Its main goal is to gather resources and expertise towards a successful development and management in order to guide destinations (World Tourism Organization, 2007). Therefore, the DMO must possess credibility as a strategic leader and the ability to facilitate industry partnerships and collaboration. Hence, the role of a DMO goes beyond marketing but also includes other management activities (Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014).
Since a DMO heavily depend on its stakeholders, stakeholder management and cooperation are considered to be of utmost importance for a successful management of a destination (Wyss, Abegg, & Luthe, 2014). In terms of sustainable development it is crucial that a DMO wins the stakeholders’ support. This can be achieved by rising awareness and providing knowledge about sustainability (Velleco & Mancino, 2010). Once awareness is raised, the DMO should set a clear focus for the stakeholders to follow in order to consolidate the engagements of the whole destination (TSG Tourism Sustainability, 2007). Furthermore, the DMOs and governmental institutes need to develop suitable tourism policies in order to initiate sustainable adaption strategies (Pechlaner & Tschurtschenthaler, 2003). A study amongst alpine destinations about the DMO’s role(s) in terms of sustainable development has shown that DMOs consider themselves being the initiators and process leaders for implementing a sustainability strategy. Nearly two third (63.3%) of DMOs claimed having the necessary skills for being a leader but not enough resources for taking this responsibility. The study concludes that the DMOs are aware of the role(s) they should play but actually do not perceive in practice (Wagenseil & Zemp, 2015).
Methods and data
In order to gain more knowledge about the involvement of DMOs in the context of CSR, a cross sectional research design has been applied. Given the practical relevance of these questions for destination management the results of this study need to be embedded in the ongoing debate about destination tourism success. A qualitative research approach aimed for two parts. First, a qualitative data analysis has been conducted in order to identify the current status of CSR engagement on the level of destinations and second, to complement the analysis of the CSR implication within a DMO, expert interviews were conducted. By examining information collected through different methods, the researcher can verify findings across data and therefore, reduce the impact of potential existing biases in a single study (Yin, 2014).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 314 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Research design
As a first step, an exploratory research approach has been applied; through exploration researchers can develop more clear concepts, establish priorities and develop operational definitions (Davidson & Cope, 2013). In this study, a website analysis was conducted in order to find out the current status about CSR (activities) in destinations. Documents analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing and evaluating documents in printed or electronic form (Bowen, 2009). The data was collected through in-depth analysis of the corporate websites, annual reports, Sustainability and CSR reports as well as other information publicly accessible. Document analysis has provided the background and context for the following expert interviews as supplementary data for tracking changes and development (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Document analysis is often used for triangulation when combined with other research methods (Denzin, 1970, p. 291).
As the second step, expert interviews were conducted with experts in the field of CSR in order to validate the findings from the website analysis and gaining deeper understanding. The semi-structured interviews, which lasted approximately 30 minutes each, were recorded and then transcribed. The interviews included seven open guiding questions that allowed the respondents to convey their views and opinions regarding CSR and its application in the tourism industry with special focus on destination management.
Sampling methods and final sample
The sample in both parts of the research was applied in a purposive sampling. Researcher uses the purposive sample in order to achieve representativeness or comparability among different types of cases (Teddlie & Yu, 2007).
During the initial part of the research phase, 83 official destination websites and reports (including 1 transnational, 27 national, 8 regional and 47 local DMOs) were analyzed selectively in order to identify the current status of CSR engagement on the level of destinations. Destinations were selected from the list “Certified Sustainable Destinations” published by the Global Sustainable Tourisms Council (GSTC, 2016), the Tourism for Tomorrow Destination Awards Finalists and Winners launched by the World Travel Tourisms Council (2016) , the TourCert Sustainability Check for Destinations website that is a label for sustainable tourism destinations, and Green Key voluntary eco-label awarded destinations due to their sustainable actors such as hotels, restaurants, tourism related establishments (Green Key, 2016).
For the expert interviews, the interview partners were selected according to the following criteria: diversity and knowledge-ability (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Participants were selected for their unique characteristics, experiences, attitudes or perceptions (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The interviewees were selected by their professional profile in the area of sustainability/CSR or have been recommended by peers. The interviews were executed with 10 representatives of organizations related to CSR in the tourism industry (e.g. professionals in CSR private initiatives, CSR experts in destination development, DMO representatives,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 315 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
professionals in CSR certifications and labels as well as marketing destinations experts). Hence, the experts’ broad views on the subject have been captured.
Research Findings
According to the research gap presented in this paper, the significance of CSR in tourism on the level of destinations and regarding the role of the DMOs has been observed through a two-staged research design. The data collection aimed for the research questions mentioned previously. While the website analysis mainly provided answers concerning the terminology and the level of involvement of DMOs in CSR, the expert interviews focused on the roles of destination management in the context of CSR. Both stages followed the same research questions and therefore can be considered as complementing sources. Data analysis of official DMO websites
Eighty three official destination websites have been analysed in order to gain a better understanding about CSR on the level of destinations. Many of the official websites and embedded reports include diverse information about the development and planning of sustainable tourism. Different initiatives have been developed and successfully implemented.
A good example is presented by the national Scottish DMO that has committed itself with environmental policies in its own operations, as a role model. VisitScotland promotes its annual targets and reports through monitoring and managing energy, water and waste consumptions with the objective to reduce its own contribution with the adverse environmental effects; plus advertises other environmental principles such as sustainable procurement actions, enhancing the biodiversity and encouraging visitors and partners to share responsibility.
When looking specifically for the term “CSR”, not many information could be found. However, Finland presents an interesting case through its local DMO VisitHelsinki, which has directly coordinated the “The Helsinki Tourism Strategy” emphasizing corporate responsibility among tourism companies. The topic of responsible tourism has mainly been addressed with terms such as: environmental policies, climate change policies, code of practices of sustainable tourism, sustainable tourism develop, certification for sustainable tourism, sustainability toolkit, responsible tourism, ecological, economic and social sustainability, sustainable initiatives, eco-sustainable tourism, sustainable travel, responsible and sustainable growth, green destinations, sustainability strategic plan.
Overall, the DMOs’ websites present two sides of responsibilities: the marketing and promotion of the destination on one, sustainability planning on the other side. The second part includes objectives for the future, certifications, laws and regulations towards sustainability. The following destinations representatively take stand as best practice examples about their role in terms of stakeholder collaboration, sustainable development or CSR:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 316 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
1. National level
a. VisitScotland (Scotland)
The DMO has adapted CSR to its own organization to set an example and stimulate its partners to share the same vision: “We are committed to continuing to improve our environmental performance, minimizing our environmental impact and making resource efficiency a core requirement of all our operations, we will seek to promote good practice by others” (VisitScotland, 2016).
The identified roles of the DMO therefore include being a promoter and a role-model.
2. Regional level
a. Sentosa (Singapore):
It promotes CSR practices with the Sentosa Sustainability Plan and annual events to motivate its partners to engage. Its initiatives include aspects such as: “minimizing the island’s carbon footprint, conserving its flora and fauna, developing itself as a hub for green projects and adopting responsible environmental standards and business practices, (…) running the annual island-wide ‘Sentosa Gives’ corporate social responsibility week in September since 2011” (Sentosa, 2015).
b. Tourism Engadin Scuol Samnaun Val Müstair (Switzerland)
The DMO gives direction for the whole destination and its stakeholders: “The Destination Management Organization (DMO) Tourism Engadin Scuol Samnaun Val Müstair AG (TESSVM) stands for sustainability in tourism. As a region of natural and cultural holiday constitutes TESSVM on deals that will not only preserve the natural and cultural values, but evolve gently” (TESSVM, 2011).
c. VisitHelsinki (Finland):
The DMO is the direct coordinator and promoter of the sustainable policies within the city: “The Helsinki Tourism Strategy coordinated by Visit Helsinki emphasizes corporate responsibility among tourism companies. Companies have an obligation to act appropriately in all matters related to environmental, social and financial responsibility” (VisitHelsinki, 2015).
d. Baden-Württemberg (Germany) including Baiersbronn, Bad Herrenalb, Bad Mergentheim, Hochschwarzwald and Stuttgart:
As a part of a pilot project, the DMO is aiming and succeeding to achieve a certification for sustainable destinations for the whole region. The DMO promotes good practices and collaboration within the region: “Through the sustainability check the state government supports strong tourism destinations in their sustainable development. During the certification process all three aspects of sustainability – economic, environmental and social
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 317 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
– checked and worked out an improvement program” (Baden-Wurttemberg, 2015).
The identified roles of the DMO hence include being a role-model, promoter, motivator, coordinator, leader, collaborator and initiator.
These chosen DMOs appreciate sustainability or CSR as an important part of the development of the destination and its network. In contrast, few destinations declare having issues implementing CSR within the destination. As an example, the Maldives mention in their Baseline report about CSR that the concept is not widely understood by the business sector and the government does not have a CSR policy (FJS Consulting, 2010). However, governmental institutions (including DMOs in Maldives) do not play a significant role in CSR promotion or it is not designated focal point as the “government's role is limited to regulatory enforcement”(2010, p. 1).
Table 6: Identified roles of a DMO when engaging in CSR
LEVEL OF ROLES OF DMO DESTINATIONS
NATIONAL promoter, role-model
REGIONAL role-model, promoter, motivator, coordinator, leader, collaborator, initiator
Expert interviews
In order to gain a better understanding regarding the terminology of CSR, the experts have been asked about a definition of CSR. As a result, respondents have defined CSR as voluntary activities by companies that take responsibility for their actions. For instance, the Area Czech Republic Manager & General Manager of Accor stated that CSR is the responsible approach towards community and its environment, where they make business and from which they profit. This definition corresponds to the previous literature review, where businesses were claimed to be responsible for more than to increase their profits (see Godfrey & Hatch, 2007) and destinations for more than just marketing but for example also for stakeholder collaboration (Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). However, the experts mentioned that basic elements of sustainability and CSR cannot be distinct very clearly.
Asking the experts concerning the purpose of CSR in the context of tourism, the idea of the concept and its implementation seem to be conflicting: all experts agreed that CSR is crucial for the companies and for the community. The Project Manager Tourism of MyClimate mentioned representatively that in theory, CSR involves preserving nature, cultural and social values. As a consequence, companies need to act responsibly, work in conjunction with the stakeholders and show transparency in their actions. However, she further mentioned that CSR is a frequently discussed topic but in reality, not much has been done so far. Therefore, people tend to be “annoyed” by the concept. Yet, the concept has lost
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 318 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
credibility because of the gap between theory and practice. One of the experts’ explanations therefore is that there has been a negative motivation to only declare itself as being sustainable and responsible but not act such as. The founder of Conscious Hospitality & Tourism has explained the possible cause of the hesitation with the term “green washing”, which is the borderline between the commitments of good practices without acting accordingly in order to gain more recognition. Nevertheless, the experts think that CSR can help destinations to create a differentiation strategy, which means that CSR is highly considered as a strong public relationship tool, marketing strategy and finally unique selling proposition. This finding goes along with the theory of Werther et al. (2005) claiming that CSR can act as brand insurance.
Concerning the role a DMO should play when engaging in CSR as a destination the experts claim that leadership should definitely be taken by the DMOs. The Project Assistant of Alpine Pearls highlighted that the environmental and cultural aspects are vital resources for the tourism sector and they need to be maintained. To secure future attractiveness and competitiveness of a tourism destination, these necessary resources must be managed in a sustainable way. Therefore, when implementing CSR within a destination, the DMO can be seen as the leader of the CSR development within the region proposing guidelines and developing products. She added that DMO could also act as a supporter and consultant for the local private businesses. A difficulty could be to bring all players to pull on one string. A lack of know-how and understanding for CSR in small and medium-sized enterprises and accommodations could also lead to difficulties. This opinion is similar to the statement expressed by a Destinations Product Manager from the tourism business consultancy named Durina Strategy, who commented that DMOs should create a framework, encourage but also lead, show good practices, because this also makes the destination more attractive. DMOs thereby should not enforce the engagement of the stakeholders (e.g. suppliers) but rather encourage and motivate stakeholders to embrace CSR within their daily activities. Being a role model by implementing CSR within the own organization is considered to be a good idea by the experts. Applying CSR in its own operational practices will motivate the awareness and set an example. Small steps towards a more responsible behavior (e.g. employee policies) will be good to inspire the rest of the actors within the destination. The DMO is furthermore considered to be responsible for the enhancement of stakeholder collaboration. A business consultant of Red Competitiva Business Consultancy (Spain) stated that DMOs need to act as a driver while mentioning idea of an “umbrella organization”, which enhances the work in collaboration with all players to become a sustainable destination.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 319 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 7: Identified roles of a DMO when engaging in CSR
ROLES OF DMOS
LEADER encourager
SUPPORTER role-model
CONSULTANT motivator
CREATOR OF FRAMEWORK
Discussion
The aim of the research was to analyze the role(s) that a DMO should play when engaging in CSR as a destination. The study furthermore investigated the questions what role CSR plays in the context of tourism, what destinations have already been doing in this field and what main challenges destinations are confronted when applying the concept of CSR.
Despite the unclear labelling of the concept, research shows that CSR is highly relevant for destination management as the collaboration of stakeholders is crucial for a destination’s success. It can be concluded that CSR is crucial for destinations as it helps preserving natural, cultural and social resources that often constitute the heart of a destination. Thus, a destination is required to implement a coherent CSR strategy as an integrated process. As a consequence, DMOs need to act responsibly, work in collaboration with its stakeholders and show transparency in their actions. Reality however shows that the concept of CSR has frequently been discussed but not many actions have been taken. For the development of a CSR strategy, its implementation and evaluation, the responsibilities in terms of roles need to be clearly defined.
According to traditional literature, the area of responsibility of a DMO is often limited to promoting a destination. It is crucial to understand that DMO are part of a wider network and they need to take their environment into account. Consequently, stakeholder collaboration and sustainable development is considered to be a responsibility of destination management. Results show that DMOs need to play a manifold role. The most mentioned task for a DMO is being a leader. Setting clear guidelines, encouraging stakeholders and be a role-model can be considered key success factors for destination management when implementing CSR within a destination. Focusing on a more sustainable and responsible tourism becomes a core topic for modern DMOs of today.
Overall, it can be concluded that destinations do engage in CSR activities although they often label the CSR related topics as sustainable tourism. Nevertheless, the concepts can be understood as similar as their aims – to take responsibility towards the whole destination and its actors for protecting its resources in the long-run– complement one another. Therefore, a modern DMO of today is no longer only responsible for marketing a destination
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 320 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
but also for preserving its resources.
The interviewees however have shown that there is still much potential left. Destination management organizations are often claimed not to have a systematic approach for engaging in sustainable development or CSR engagement. In order to successfully embrace CSR as a destination, the DMO needs to take the lead in the process. They are required to play a manifold tasks including but not limiting to leadership, support, education, motivation and being a role-model. Prerequisites according to the experts are an ongoing public support, a committed and well-staffed DMO and high acceptance by the tourism businesses. Managerial implications and further research
Aside the need to further develop the concept and definition of CSR in tourism destinations it is highly important that DMOs integrate the concept of CSR within their internal and external structures. As modern DMOs play a crucial role in the development of CSR practices they need to plan and include CSR initiatives in their own overall strategy, especially with regards to stakeholder management. CSR needs to be clearly addressed in a destination’s mission statement and consequently included in the business objectives and its performance measurement. Consequently, for being a strong leader, the DMO needs to take responsibility towards various actors and encourage them to align towards a common goal.
One way to establish common goals within the network can be achieved through a CSR certification for the destination. Sustainability certifications offered by organizations such as TourCert contribute valuably to the implementation of a more sustainable and responsible tourism. The German destination of Baden-Württemberg constitutes a good example of gaining a CSR label by TourCert. In collaboration with the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection (MLR) of Baden-Württemberg, the certification has successfully been achieved by various actors of the destinations (“TourCert” 2016).
Sustainability certification has been awarded to entire destinations amongst the sample presented in this study. More research could be determined to the models applied, their advantages and limitations as well as actual results. A case-study approach is suggested to illustrate the practical use of the notion of CSR within destinations. This could be highlighted by the illustrated example of the Baden-Württemberg's sustainability project.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 321 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Angelevska-Najdeska, K., & Rakicevik, G. (2012). Planning of Sustainable Tourism Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 44, 210–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.022
Baden-Wurttemberg. (2015). CSR Baden-Württemberg. Retrieved from http://www.csr- bw.de/347.html
Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen model for destination management. Institute for Systemic Management and Public Governance (IMP- HSG).
Bieger, T., & Beritelli, P. (2013). Management von Destinationen (8th ed.).
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a QualitativeResearch Method. WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. (O. U. PRess, Ed.) (Third edit).
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122– 141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.02.001
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Qualitative Research. Business Research Methods.
Davidson, R., & Cope, B. (2013). Business Travel. Conferences, Incentive.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
Dodds, R., & Joppe, M. (2005). CSR in the tourism industry? The status of and potential for certification, codes of conduct and guidelines. IFC/World Bank, Washington. Retrieved from http://www.turismdurabil.ro/literatura/csr/additional_documents/I- CSR+in+the+Tourism+Industry - study.pdf
Dodds, R., & Kuehnel, J. (2010). CSR among Canadian mass tour operators: good awareness but little action. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 221–244. http://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011018205
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. http://doi.org/10.2307/20159839
European Union. (2001). GREEN PAPER - Promoting a European framework for Corporate
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 322 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Social Respnosibility. CSR Green Paper Consultation.
FJS Consulting. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Maldives.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.
Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2016).
Green Key. (2016). Unlocking sustainability in the hospital industry. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://www.greenkey.global/
Hemingway, C. A. (2013). Corporate social entrepreneurship: Integrity within. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Horner, S., & Swarbrooke, J. (2008). Internation cases in tourism managment.
Howard, R., & Bowen. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.
Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32(4), 790–804. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.019
Kapardis, M., & Neophytidou, C. (n.d.). Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the hotel industry. Journal of Tourism Research. Retrieved from http://jotr.eu/index.php/hospitality-management/97-kapardi
Nicolae, J. C., & Sabina, D. B. M. (2012). The ICT Implication on CSR in the Tourism of Emerging Markets. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3(12), 702–709. http://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00217-1
Pechlaner, H., & Tschurtschenthaler, P. (2003). Tourism policy, tourism organisation and change management in Alpine regions and destinations: a European perspective., 508–539.
Pechlaner, H., Volgger, M., & Herntrei, M. (2012). Destination management organizations as interface between destination governance and corporate governance. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(2), 151–168. http://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2011.652137
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Sentosa. (2015). Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.sentosa.gov.sg/sustainability/
Smith, R. A., & Ong, J. L. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Operationalization Challenge for Global Tourism Organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10941665.2014.918555
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 323 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Strasdas, W. (2012). Development of a Certification System for Sustainable Destination Management, (Rath), 262–266.
Styles, D., Schönberger, H., & Galvez-Martos, J. L. (2013). Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector. http://doi.org/10.2788/33972
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. http://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
TESSVM. (2011). CSR Tourismus Engadin Scuol Samnaun Val Müstair AG. Retrieved from http://www.engadin.com/service/ueber-uns/corporate-social- responsibility/?S=2&R=1
Tourcert. (2016). Retrieved from www.tourcert.org
TSG Tourism Sustainability. (2007). ACTION for MORE SUSTAINABLE EUROPEAN TOURISM. Tourism, (February).
UNESCO. (2009). Sustainable Tourism Development in UNESCO Designated Sites in South- Eastern Europe. Unesco, (0), 1–43.
Velleco, I., & Mancino, A. (2010). Sustainability and tourism development in three Italian destinations.
VisitHelsinki. (2015). Sustainability policy in Helsinki. Retrieved June 1, 2016, from http://www.visithelsinki.fi/en/professional/convention-bureau/our- services/sustainability-policy-in-helsinki
VisitScotland. (2016). Environmental Policy. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.visitscotland.org/about_us/our_policies/environmental_policy.aspx
Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Requirements for destination management organizations in destination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management, 41, 64–75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.001
Wagenseil, U., & Zemp, M. (2015). Sustainable Tourism in Mountain Destinations : the perceived and actual role of a Destination Management Organization.
Weber, F., & Wehrli, R. (2015). Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement in Tourismusorganisationen, 17–79.
Werther, W. B., & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance. Business Horizons, 48(4), 317–324. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.009
World Tourism Organization. (2007). A Practical guide to tourism destination management.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 324 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
World Travel & Tourism Council. (2016). Tourism For Tomorrow Awards. Retrieved from http://www.wttc.org/tourism-for-tomorrow-awards/
Wyss, R., Abegg, B., & Luthe, T. (2014). Perceptions of climate change in a tourism governance context. Tour Manag Perspective, 69–76.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods) (5th ed.). SAGE.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 325 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Sustainable Tourism Management on Small Island Destinations: A New Model for Sustainable Development
Bonnie Lewtas* & René Schmidpeter^
*Cologne Business School, Germany, [email protected]
^ Cologne Business School, Germany, [email protected]
Key words: Sustainability, Island, Tourism, Hotels, Model, Management
“I think we have done so well here because of the way we do things when it comes to the environment” – Hotel B, 2015 Introduction
On December 11th, 2015 climate change negotiations came to a close after the COP21 –2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. The stakes were high for Small Island Destinations (SIDs) as they anxiously awaited the results of the largest diplomatic meeting to take place in France since 1948 (Peralta, 2015). Across media channels and climate protests the event was referred to as “the last chance summit”, which is all too realistic for SIDs (The Guardian, 2015). Following 20 years of discussions, for the first time in history, 195 countries and the European Union have come together to develop the first legally binding universal agreement on climate action (CAN, 2015). After 12 days of intense negotiations, the draft aims at limiting global temperature rise to a maximum of 2°C, while striving for 1.5 °C (UNFCC, 2015). This target may be ambitious, but it is not enough for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which campaigned to reduce the limit to 1.5 degrees (CTA Brussels, 2015). The special case of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) was highlighted in an attempt to sensitise the international community to their specific vulnerabilities of unsustainable development (UN-OHRLLS, 2015).
In Paris, SIDS were vocal as they are already being hit by sea level rise, changes in rainfall and ocean acidification. The cultures, food and water security and livelihoods of people on small islands are dependant on sustainability action both on-island and internationally (van Sebille, 2015). In some cases, sea-level rise resulting from melting ice caps is even threatening to wipe out entire island nations (Climate Students, 2015).
The Prime Minister of Aruba, views the unique position not only as an obstacle, but also an opportunity: “Small island nations can be laboratories to demonstrate how a successful transition to a greener and more sustainable way of living can occur in all countries” (Climate Students, 2015). As the main economic pillar for many SIDs, these goals cannot be achieved without the tourism industry (UNDSD, 2015). Therefore, the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway called for the development and implementation of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 326 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
policies that promote sustainable tourism (UNDSD, 2015).
Tourism is one of the worlds largest, fastest growing and most diverse economic sectors (UNWTO, 2015, p.1). Just as it has over the past six decades, it is predicted that the industry will continue to expand in markets around the world (UNWTO, 2015, p.1). For many SIDs the tourism sector has dominated and become the main economic pillar. Images of pristine natural and cultural resources give islands a strong competitive advantage they could otherwise not achieve on the global marketplace (UNWTO, 2014, p.1). Since 2000, tourist arrivals to SIDs have increased by around 46%, which in 2013 accounted for 41 million international visitors. Thus, resulting in tourism export revenue of US$ 53 billion in 2013 (UNWTO, 2014, p.1). Sustainable tourism can foster re-growth opportunities (UNWTO, 2014, p.1), peace (Wohlmuther & Wintersteiner, 2014), and resilience in economically, politically or environmentally fragile regions.
As described above, SIDs are depending on the world and the world is depending on SIDs to become a model for sustainability. This is however, unachievable without the tourism industry and its key players – namely hotels. Therefore, a sustainable development model needs to be designed and applied in the industry to create opportunities out of obstacles. Sustainability is extremely complex and is dependent on how social and economic activities relate to environmental processes. This is especially true on small islands characterized by vulnerabilities such as fragile ecosystems, natural resource scarcity, import dependency, isolation from economies of scale and increasing demand. As tourism management is primarily an economic field, managers are not specialized in disciplines such as environmental sciences, engineering, design, etc., making a holistic understanding of sustainable development challenging. While initiatives are being implemented, there seems to be a lack of understanding for exactly which variables classify a business decision, hotel, or even entire island as “sustainable”.
This paper combines existing theories of sustainability and whole systems thinking into a new model to help determine the “sustainability” of an action or series of actions. It should serve as a rough guide for tourism management on small island destinations. The concept stemmed from an international literature review of the challenges and opportunities facing hotels on SIDs with regards to sustainable development, as well as grounded theory research conducted in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Therefore, the model was developed upon reflection of this research and has not yet been applied in practice. Following the literature review, five key categories were selected as critical for sustainable hotel management on SIDs and were the focus of the on-site expert interviews conducted. They are Energy, Waste, Water, Food & Beverage and Wildlife Conservation. Due to the limited scope of this paper and the preferred focus on model explanation, none of these categories will be discussed in-depth. However, in order to set the stage, three categories will be briefly introduced and key findings discussed (Energy, Water and Waste). These were chosen because (A) they are fundamental to every hotel department and, (B) sustainable management requirements in these areas differ significantly on SIDs compared to mainland destinations. Due to the holistic nature of sustainability, there is significant overlap between categories. Each is dependent on the other and this paper does not present them in any
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 327 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
order of importance. To best serve the purpose, the flow has been designed as follows. It begins with a description of how primary research was collected. This is followed by a brief summary of international literature in each of the three key management categories as well as a summary of findings from the British Virgin Islands. Finally, existing sustainability concepts are discussed and assembled into a new model for sustainable development.
Methodology
The research conducted in the British Virgin Islands offers a glimpse into current challenges and opportunities experienced by hotels and tourism industry stakeholders striving for sustainability. Primary research was conducted on-site via face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interview durations lasted between fifteen minutes and four hours. While several hotel experts did not respond to email/ telephone requests, overall, the researcher experienced a notable amount of support and the majority of people contacted were keen participants. Interviewees did not seem hesitant to transparently discuss the topic and provided a lot of valuable information. Interviews were quite relaxed in nature and took place on-site or at local venues. Participants commonly recommended and provided connections for further interviews. Many more field experts would have been available; however, due to time constraints this was not feasible. In order to maintain anonymity, hotel interviews have been labeled A, B, C and D and interviews with further industry experts have been given a title according to their field of expertise.
A total of fifteen formal interviews were conducted with industry representatives all of whom classify as the country’s leading experts in their perspective fields. All interviews took place in February 2015 with the exception of the two conducted at Hotel D, which took place on-site in March 2013 as a component of previous research in the field. Experts spanning various domains were selected to provide a holistic representation from a wide array of perspectives. Interviews were conducted at four of the BVI’s top hotels leading the way in sustainability. There, talks were held with several Owners, General Managers, Chief Engineers, a Deputy Director, a Wildlife Conservation Manager, a Food and Beverage Manager as well as a local sustainability NGO board of directors’ representative. In addition to hotel representatives, other industry professionals also provided insight. Three agriculture experts were interviewed from the BVI’s two largest commercial farms. This included the owners and managers, one of which who is also the Founding Director of a local art studio, which incorporates local materials and waste products into prized artistry. Two interviews took place on-site and the third on the exhibition grounds of the BVI 2015 OCTA Ministerial Conference Showcasing Sustainable Development through – Competitiveness and Green Growth. Also at the exhibition, an interview was conducted with the CEO and Founding Director of the BVI’s only recycling business.
Additional interviews included the Executive Director of the BVI’s most successful sustainability NGO as well as a Water Management Expert who is the CEO and Founding Director of a leading water purification and sewage treatment company as well as another local business. Finally, a Senior Environmental Officer of the BVI Tourist Board who also manages two local restaurants discussed the governmental perspective. At the OCTA
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 328 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
exhibition attended, government and organizational representatives provided industry reports and gave speeches about the future of sustainability in the BVI. The above-described interviews were combined with industry and government reports, which also enabled the development of the sustainability model.
Sustainable Tourism Management on Small Island Destinations
In 1972, the founder and president of the BVI Resources Foundation discussed the uniqueness of island regions. He wrote that small islands require a much more integrated and holistic management approach as all actions have a domino effect (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.65). Islands are an integral system in which no life form remains isolated. The delicate ecology consists of highly interdependent relationships between one island to another, a system to a subsystem and island to ocean (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.65). This is not only true of ecological effects but also between people and businesses.
Despite the negative environmental impacts commonly associated with tourism, it is often the main economic pillar (Varela-Acevedo, et al., 2009, p.3). If tourism were to be replaced by more environmentally friendly activities much economic hardship would occur (UNWTO, 1998, p.698). Therefore, STM is critical for the social, economic and environmental prosperity of SIDs. The challenges facing islands are unprecedented (Purkis & Miller, 2012, p.22). Climate change is already being felt (UNESCO, 2010, p.3). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), small islands will be hit first and hardest from the negative effects (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.61). The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, referred to climate change as “the defining issue of our era”, especially the case on SIDs (UNESCO, 2010, p.3).
Consequences include rising temperatures (Varela‐Acevedo, et al. 2009, p.3) (which can lead to changes in tourist demand), decreased overall rainfall (making agriculture more difficult) coupled with heavier rainfall events (causing flooding and ocean run-off), more and stronger hurricanes (threatening infrastructure, wildlife and the safety of locals and tourists), as well as sea level rise (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.61) (increasing beach erosion) (CANARI, 2012, p.41). Unfortunately, those are not the only challenges facing SIDs. Other obstacles include overshot carrying capacity, increased air pollution, degraded water and soil quality, waste management issues (Purkis & Miller, 2012, p.22), dependence on imports and ocean acidification from increased greenhouse gas emissions (Summit Secretariat, 2013, p.17). All of these factors present severe risks for the present and future quality of life in these regions (Purkis & Miller, 2012, p.22).
Energy is the first of the three key management categories. Islands are highly dependant on energy imports (IRENA, 2014-B, pg.4) dominated by fossil fuels (IRENA, 2014-A), pg.1). Isolation from large economies makes SIDs more susceptible to external factors such as cost
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 329 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
spikes and scarcity, have higher transportation fees (Rogers, Chmutina & Moseley, 2012, p.284), a greater risk of oil spillage and irreversible wildlife disturbances (Boniface & Cooper, 2009, p.49). Furthermore, COP21 signalled the end of the fossil fuel era with many global leaders committing to completely phase out fossil fuel emissions and switch to 100% renewable energy by 2050 (CAN, 2015 and Blue & Green Tomorrow, 2015). Hotels cannot run their business without a reliable supply of energy adequate to support tourism demand (IRENA, 2014–B, pg.3). Therefore, it is more important than ever that hotels focus on energy independence from sustainable sources. Island hotels must be even more innovative with their energy solutions as they have to factor in additional needs resulting from resource scarcity in other areas, for example water. Therefore, they rely on desalination, which is energy intensive (Bilton, et al., 2011, pg. 2).
Though SIDs face many obstacles, they often have an advantage when it comes the natural availability of clean energy. The majority have climate conditions that are ideal for renewables. This includes abundant sun, wind or even geothermal and marine resources (GENI, 2008, pg. 4). For example, Barbados’ average daily insolation is 5.7kWh/m2. This is significantly higher than Germany and Japan’s sunniest regions – two of the countries experiencing the most success with solar installations (Rogers, Chmutina, Moseley, 2012, p.285). This demonstrates that many SIDs have yet to fully utilise their capacity for renewable energy (UNEP, UN DESA and FAO, 2012, pg. 18). So why are more hotels on small islands not taking advantage of abundant renewable energy resources? Substantial barriers to the instatement of renewable energies on SIDs are financial, institutional and political (Rogers, Chmutina, Moseley, 2012, p.284). A small percentage of SIDs have legislation framework adequate for the guidance of meeting of renewable energy policy objectives (UNEP, UN DESA and FAO, 2012, pg. 19). Nevertheless, the green energy movement is quickly gaining momentum (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, 34). More and more hotels are realizing that green energy technologies are the foundation of sustainable tourism (IRENA, 2014-C).
The sustainable management of energy is of utmost importance to the BVI’s tourism industry. Most hotels are dependant on fossil-fuel imports supplied by the BVI Electricity Corporation (BVIEC). The company has been granted a virtual monopoly that prevents the provision of primary renewable energy sources in regions BVIEC served areas (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.34). This makes investment in clean technologies unviable for hotels that fall under the jurisdiction (p.c., Hotel B, 2015, p.11). The outdated legislative authority puts the financial interests of the oil corporation above the Tourism Development Plan and the Tourist Board’s goal of making the BVI the most sustainable Caribbean destination. This damages the local industry in a variety of ways. Not only is the switch to renewable energies necessary from an environmental standpoint, but it also positively impacts guest experience (p.c., Hotel A, 2015). Hotels on smaller islands reliant on diesel imports have it delivered by barge ships early in the morning, which is loud and disturbs guests. Renewable energies eliminate such disturbances (p.c., Hotel B, 2015, p.21). Furthermore, having a diesel generator running all day is loud and degrades an otherwise relaxing atmosphere (p.c., Hotel A, 2015). Several hotels located on tiny or private islands
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 330 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
are exempt from this legislation and some of which have therefore, been leading the country’s renewable energy projects (p.c., Hotel B, 2015, p.11). These hotels have demonstrated the benefits by inviting government officials to the properties and explaining the systems, however legislation has yet to be adapted (p.c., Hotel B, 2015, p.11).
Water is the second key management category. Just as with energy, hotels and the tourism industry on SIDs are dependant on a clean and consistent supply. It is fundamental for the health of employees, guests, the local ecosystem and is used on a daily basis in just about every hotel operation (ITP, 2014). Many small islands around the world are facing extreme shortages and the limited resources available are under threat due to excessive use and contamination (WRRC, 2015). Features unique to SIDs that increase the vulnerability of fresh water resources include surface area limitations, natural disaster sensitivity and the proximity of highly permeable aquifers to seawater (UNEP, 2014). Climate change is impacting small island water supply as temperature rise, rainfall patterns change and extreme weather events become more common. Particularly on low-lying islands, sea-level rise degrades the quality of groundwater resources (WRRC, 2015). On a growing number of SIDs water demand exceeds local supply (Tapper, et al., 2011). This not only undermines sustainable development opportunities (Tapper, et al., 2011), but also Resolution 64/292 of the 2010 United Nations General Assembly recognizing access to water and sanitation as a human right (United Nations, 2010). On many SIDs in the Caribbean, Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, tourism is both a major consumer of fresh water and the primary economic pillar (UNEP, 2012, pg. iii). This demonstrates the economic interest of hotels to contribute to the conservation, management and development of freshwater resources. As the majority of SIDs have few to no regulations encouraging water use optimization in hotels (UNEP, 2003, vii), facility operators must take water conservation into their own hands.
The BVI tourism industry is heavily dependent on water. Fresh water in the region is scarce (Jones, Hillier & Comfort, 2014, p.9 and p.c., Hotel B, 2015,p. E.19). The recent growth in population and tourism is exhausting already depleted resources (CANARI, 2012). Furthermore, climate change has led to increased evaporation and reductions in rainfall. In 2015, the country experienced a drought that created massive challenges for local businesses and community members. While water resources were especially scarce last year, even in 2014 with almost quadruple the amount of rain, local farmers expressed extreme concern for their crops. The only commercial farmer on Virgin Gorda (The BVI’s most popular tourism destination) (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p. 207) loses a large percentage of his tomatoes each year from “black bottom rot”. The disease resulted from the farmer not being able to afford a significant supply of fresh water during fertilization (p.c. Agriculture Expert 1, 2015).
Water shortages make BVI hotels more dependent on food imports as the few local crops available become unpredictable and hotels require pre-determined contracts from suppliers (p.c. Agriculture Expert 1&2 and Hotel C, 2015). Local hotels recognize the need for steady fresh water supplies. “If we run out of water we cannot run our business. We cannot make
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 331 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
money”, stated one hotel manager (p.c., Hotel B, 2015, p. 19). Unfortunately, the misuse of water supplies is commonplace in the tourism industry. Leaks in faucets, showers and hoses in many establishments are not regularly repaired or left running unnecessarily (p.c. Agriculture Expert 1, 2015). In response to the recent drought, the government has urged businesses to detect and repair leaks and implement reduction measures. Many hotels have been forced to curtail water usage as their reservoirs depleted far below capacity (Robertson, P. (BVI Gov.), 2015). While urging the local community to reduce consumption during drought periods is important, it is not enough to secure the country’s supply. No water management policy is currently in place for local hotels (p.c., Government Representative, 2015, p.2). Therefore, just as with energy, hotels must be responsible for designing and operating their own water management policy.
Waste is the final key management category summarized in this paper. Like energy and water, SID characteristics make waste management a challenge upon which the survival of tourism on islands depends. Few have the facilities and programs in place to efficiently deal with excessive streams resulting from tourism (UNEP, UN DESA & FAO, 2012, pg. 20). Hotels generate of large amounts of solid and hazardous waste. Traditionally, this was sent to landfill, incinerated, openly burned or indiscriminately dumped on land, rivers or the ocean devastating wildlife and the overall quality of ecological systems (UNEP, 1998). While management measures have increased, so have waste streams and proper disposal is still a massive challenge. Landfill and incineration are the most relied upon methods of waste disposal on SIDs. Small-scale recycling facilities do exist, however, they are severely limited and usually lack legal and regulatory support (UNEP, UN DESA & FAO, 2012, pg. 20). Hotels are a big part of the problem and are therefore, responsible for the development of innovative and sustainable management strategies. They will save on purchasing and disposal costs, reduce energy consumption and pollution as well as help to conserve the natural resources upon which the industry depends (Favro & Brebbia (Eds.), 2013, pg. 48).
Pollution is extremely detrimental to the BVI’s tourism industry. The environmental impacts of poor local waste management practices include, soil, water and air pollution as well as the associated environmental degradation and health concerns (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.173). Therefore, it is critical for BVI hotels to reduce and properly manage waste. This is not usually identified as a priority issue in development planning. At the same time, the country lacks, or has not appointed, sufficient institutional resources (human, technical and financial) to handle increasing, and more complex streams. The finite land area also limits disposal options, thus increasing the urgency to address issues (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.166). The BVI does not have the capacity to support the current influx of unregulated waste it is currently experiencing. Therefore, it has become a huge issue and has already begun degrading both the aesthetic appeal of the destination and its ecosystem functions (e.g. sewage at Green VI & Coral bleaching at Cane Garden Bay from tourist sunscreen). Local initiatives are beginning, but they lack governmental and institutional support and cannot cope with current levels (p.c. WM Expert 1 & 2, 2015). Improving practices and implementing a plan among hotels will significantly contribute to a safe and sustainable environment, which according to The BVI Tourism Strategy Broad
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 332 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Policy Objective is the goal of the government. Utilizing the country’s resources optimally will improve human health, create jobs and harness creative potential to transform current waste obstacles into opportunities for betterment (Island Resources Foundation, 2012, p.176).
The above mentioned obstacles demonstrate the need for a more clear understanding of what sustainable development truly means and how it can be practically implemented into the tourism industry on SIDs. Therefore, the following is a review of current sustainability concepts, which led to the development of “The Sustainability Cycle” – the model derived from field and literature investigation. The Sustainability Cycle
The Sustainability Cycle is a continuous growth model developed for future test application on SIDs. The goal is to see whether strategies can be developed that enable hotels to use social and economic capital to create environmental gains for the island. If this model proves successful, the tourism industry should fuel the growth of environmental resources – not vice versa.
Sustainable tourism management cannot be adequately understood without the concept of sustainable development. The most widely known definition of sustainable development was published in 1987 in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”, also known as the Brundtland Report. The report defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987). Its vagueness was quickly highlighted in academic literature. What are present day needs? How do they vary? How can the needs of future generations be determined? And, how can the effects of today’s actions on future generations be predicted? – There are simply too many unquantifiable and interrelated determinants.
Based on the lack of measurement framework, the University of Rhode Island released a report called “Development for the Past, Present, and Future: Defining and Measuring Sustainable Development” (Cantor, 2011, pg.1). The author confirmed that after a review of pertinent literature, there was still “little to no consensus as to what sustainable development truly means” (Cantor, 2011, pg.4). This of course is an issue when attempting to offer practical and reliable solutions for sustainable tourism on SIDs. The Sustainable Development Measurement Index (SDMI) was created to help quantify development progress in various countries. While this index will not be explored in depth, it provides a valuable foundation, which includes the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability, i.e., the Three Pillars of Sustainability.
The Three Pillars of Sustainability were identified as the components necessary for sustainable development: Society, Economy and Environment. These are also commonly referred to as the 3P’s of Sustainability (People, Planet, Profit). The idea is that if one pillar becomes too weak, sustainable development will not be possible. The two most popular
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 333 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
ways of depicting the three pillars are shown below.
Figure 1– Popular Depictions of the 3P’s of Sustainability, Source: (Thwink.org, 2014)
Social sustainability is perhaps the most difficult to measure. According to the International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP), it is defined as the long-term ability of people within a society to meet their needs. Needs here refer to Chilean economist Manfred Max- Neef’s identification of nine human needs that remain consistent across varying cultures (Hitchcock & Willard, 2011). Therefore, if societies of the world, despite differences in geography, social norms and conventions, can satisfy those needs - social sustainability has been achieved. Economic sustainability has been commonly defined, quite literally, as the maintenance of monetary capital – I.e. staying debt free by not expending more money than is being generated (Goodland, 2002, pg. 2). Environmental Sustainability is the amount of natural resources that can be extracted or damaged without reducing the planet’s ability to regenerate them (Daly, 1990). The measurement of losses and gains in the three areas of sustainability is the goal of triple bottom line accounting.
The “Triple Bottom Line” theory was first introduced by John Elkington in the 1994 publication "Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development” (Elkington, 1994). The theory puts a more realistic spin on classic accounting, which calculates profit solely in terms of monetary gains – i.e. the bottom line. The triple bottom line includes the three sustainability dimensions for the determination of profit: Environmental, social, and economic (Slaper & Hall, 2011, pg. 4). Variations have since been developed such as “Sustainability 2.0”, which recognizes that in the absence of a healthy environment, social and economic success is not possible. Thus, it more accurately places ecosystem health (i.e. the natural environment) as the foundation upon which economic and social stability depend (Tischner, 2015, pg. 16). Unlike pure economic profit, it is extremely difficult to quantify social and environmental capital in a way that can be accurately and efficiently calculated by organizations (Slaper & Hall, 2011).
The term “Carrying Capacity” is commonly used in ecological and science texts as a way to describe the planetary limits to social and economic growth (Beder, 2006, pg. 20). While, the concept originated in the agriculture industry, today carrying capacity is commonly
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 334 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
applied to assess the sustainability of people, even on a global scale. It demonstrates the limits to growth by conceptualizing the ultimate degeneration of the resources people need to survive if the earth’s natural limits are not respected (Beder, 2006, pg. 21). This represents a situation in which the earth goes into “ecological overshoot” and humanity experiences environmental debt, by consuming more than can be replenished. Several environmental organizations have applied this concept to a calendar year and calculated the approximate day when the earth’s “budget” for the year is exhausted. This shifts progressively earlier and in 2015, already occurred on August 13th (Global Footprint Network, 2015-A). On a global scale, approximately half this years worth of activities are degrading resources that will not be replenished. Thus, demonstrating the importance of a new sustainability model. While the above refers to global natural resources, the same can, and should, be calculated for SIDs to determine where they are with regards to their environmental capacity to support a tourism industry. The amount of environmental resources required to support humans is dependant on lifestyle choices and consumption patterns. Therefore, an evaluation measurement for individuals, businesses and countries is necessary.
An Ecological Footprint is the impact a specific entity has on the natural environment. It can be used to calculate the “footprint” of an individual, a business or even an entire country (or island). It provides a rough estimation of the land and water resources necessary to offset that impact (Global Footprint Network, 2015-B). A similar tool is the Carbon Footprint calculator, which focuses solely on greenhouse gas emissions and not the environment as a whole (EPA, 2015). Both of these are useful for SIDs as it is critical to estimate the amount of environmental resources depleted through individual and corporate activities. The authors have yet to come across an ecological footprint calculator specifically tailored to hotels. However, in 2013, a US-based hotel consultancy company did launch a carbon calculation tool to assist hotel managers with environmental management (HOTELCO2, 2015).
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one of the best strategies for determining the environmental impact of supplies. It can help hotels choose the most sustainable options by offering sustainability “grades” for specific products through a review of life-cycle stages (Tischner, 2015, pg. 135). Stages include the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, use and disposal. Results can vary for the same product depending on how, when and where it used and disposed of. Therefore, it is important that this calculation is done with reference to a specific hotel or at least a similar one in a neighbouring location. A thorough LCA can be quite time intensive. However, many software tools are available that make the process much more efficient (e.g. www.sustainableminds.com) (Tischner, 2015, pg. 135). For larger investments (e.g., fridges, washing machines, etc.) and products purchased in bulk (e.g., toiletries, linens, glasses, plates, etc.) it is well worth the time to conduct a thorough LCA. While, an LCA does serve as an excellent guide for making sustainable decisions, its results should not be written in stone. Other factors may come into play that make it more reasonable, and even more sustainable, to choose the product with the second, or third highest “sustainability score”. Staff should be educated and trusted enough to make judgement calls after taking into
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 335 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
consideration all available information. The final concept used for the development of the Sustainability Cycle is Cradle-to-cradle design – in particular Upcycling.
Cradle-to-cradle is a strategy that aims to eliminate waste through innovative product design. It is particularly interesting for SIDs, as they generally lack access to large-scale recycling facilities and therefore, a successful strategy is not only critical, but also incredibly challenging. Generally, today even recyclable products are designed to eventually be disposed of and thus, contribute to pollution and environmental degradation (i.e. cradle-to- grave). Cradle-to-cradle stems from the idea that waste is a human creation and that in nature the decomposition of one structure leads to the birth of another (i.e. cradle-to- cradle) (McDonough &Braungart, 2002). Here, the classic “Reduce – Reuse – Recycle” approach is challenged as it encourages the “downcycling” of products and not the more environmentally friendly “upcycling” in which the “waste product” positively contributes to another cycle. The following image depicts the two types of cradle-to-cradle design, both of which add value to “waste” by either feeding back into ecological cycles as a nutrient, or technological cycles to supply for a new product.
The concept of upcycling is a chief component of the Sustainability Cycle. The majority of recycling can be classified as downcycling. Downcycling is the conversion of waste materials into new materials of reduced quality or functionality. The more often the material or product goes through this cycle, the less useful it becomes (McDonough &Braungart, 2002). Upcycling however, is the opposite (Pauli, 1999). Upcycling avoids the input of potentially wasteful materials by using already available ones. I.e. it is the innovative transformation of waste materials into new products of superior environmental value (McDonough &Braungart, 2002). This is in essence, exactly what the Sustainability Cycle tries to do: Upcycle environmental resources through innovative ways of adding social and economic capital, thus, expanding the resource base to fuel the process further.
The Sustainability Cycle was developed in response to the failure of the current economic system to provide a base for sustainable development. Capitalism, or the current economic model, takes natural resources and turns them into economic capital to create goods and services for people. This was developed in a time when environmental resources were perceived as unlimited. Thus, offering the possibility for sustained economic growth. This perspective is severely out-dated and fails to account for the finite natural resources of the planet. It does not have the potential to function long-term and has demonstrated over and over that it is not compatible with current situations (e.g. 2008 economic crisis). Is continuous economic growth possible? If this new model can be applied, then – Yes! However, only if value can be added to the “environmental base” resulting in a continuous expansion of natural resources, through the application of social and economic capital.
The Sustainability Cycle integrates the above-mentioned concepts into a new way of doing business. It focuses on the growth of environmental capital as a way to continuously fuel social and economic resources, which intern are used to create more environmental capital. Perhaps, the model of continuous social and economic growth was not completely wrong. The problem is that it neglects the foundation upon which it relies. If the focus shifts to the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 336 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
growth of environmental resources, those can theoretically feed back into the system to support social and economic development. As long as the base keeps expanding, through innovative environmental restoration projects, an infinitive feedback-loop should be possible. The following image is a depiction of the Sustainability Cycle.
Key
Environmental Inputs (EI) Equation for Sustainable Development Environmental Outputs (EO) SD = EO ≥ (EI + SC + EC) Social Capital (SC) UD = EO < (EI + SC + EC) Economic Capital (EC)
Sustainable Development (SD)
Unsustainable Development (UD)
Figure 2 – The Sustainability Cycle
The Sustainability Cycle uses a portion of available environmental capital (within the carrying capacity) to support the development of social and economic systems, which can add value to environmental capital (e.g. through innovation and restoration projects). This then results in more environmental capital being available to fuel further social and economic endeavours, which again, should be focused on the addition of environmental value. As long as social and economic resources are consistently applied in a way that gives back more than they take out, the cycle can continue inevitably – unlike the current economy centric model, which only ends in waste and the pollution of natural resources (losses in EO). The equation is a simplified mathematical formula of how the model should function. I.e. Sustainable development is achieved so long as output of environmental resources, through social and economic investment, is equal to or greater than the original environmental inputs. If EO is greater, social and economic growth is possible. If EO is less,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 337 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
social and economic potential is reduced. Loops can be created within social and economic circles as long as they ultimately lead to the creation of EO greater than EI.
To summarise, the Sustainability Cycle is simply based on three types of capital and the idea that the sum of those parts should be larger than the original inputs. Currently, society extracts natural resources and supposedly adds value to them through social capital (e.g., business development, innovation, etc.) in order to create economic value. However, just as the product development cycle should not end in waste, neither should the “economic” one. The current model is combining three types of capital and becoming indebted on all three levels, consistently reducing the potential for the creation of more social and economic resources through environmental destruction. Thus, the theories of sustainable development (which conclude that while social and economic components are necessary, the environment is the base upon which the whole system needs to function) need to be applied and combined with systems thinking and upcycling. I.e. environmental resources should be used to feed social and economic resources. The product must be greater than its inputs and added value fed back into the base to create a better environmental system.
With the current process of environmental capital being used to feed social and economic systems (as demonstrated through carrying capacity and ecological overshoot), much more is being taken than can naturally be replenished. However, through specifically targeted and calculated sustainability initiatives, such as soil and forest restoration, renewable energy development, waste upcycling, water purification, breeding programs and species reintroduction, etc., it is not only possible to reduce the environmental resources needed to fuel social and economic activity, but also to add more value to the environment. Applying this to hotels on small islands, all decisions should have the ultimate goal of generating a larger return on environmental investment and increasing the resources available on the island and surrounding marine ecosystems. Activities should be focused on regional self- sufficiency (water, energy, food), the elimination or re-application of waste streams, biodiversity regeneration, increased soil productivity, higher water quality, etc. All activities that ultimately have no possibility to directly or indirectly produce environmental gain, even through innovative solutions, cannot be considered sustainable. These activities should be listed and reviewed to determine whether or not they are necessary for the development of a tourism industry. Over time, such activities should be reduced and replaced with sustainable ones.
The same factors that make tourism management difficult on small islands are also reasons why they are ideal locations to test the application of the Sustainability Cycle. This is a result of the smaller scope and reduced external influences. Isolation from economies of scale, natural resource scarcity, import dependency and fragile ecosystems mean that a new management paradigm for small islands is not only critical, but also can be more easily evaluated.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 338 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Conclusion
This year’s climate change negotiations in Paris made it clear that not only are SIDs most susceptible to the devastating effects of unsustainable development, but also ideal locations to test new and innovative resilience approaches. Therefore, this research is not only relevant for island destinations, but also contributes to the development and implementation of a new management paradigm for global sustainability. The authors call upon anyone interested in the fate of the planet (or at least their business) to read, discuss, share, criticize, further develop and/or implement any of the approaches in this paper. Sustainability is an interdisciplinary and constantly evolving concept, which requires the spread of transparent information on its complex and interrelated facets. Reports on the state of the environment may at times seem gloom and overwhelming. However, global connectivity brought upon by technical advances, the Internet and social media offers people in virtually every corner of the globe access to a wealth of resources to create positive change. This puts humanity in better position than ever before to join forces and create a sustainable future. There is no Planet B. References
Beder, S. (2006). (Book). Environmental Principals and Policies – An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan.
Bilton, A. M., Wiesman, R., Arif, A. F. M., Zubair, S. M., & Dubowsky, S. (2011). On the feasibility of community-scale photovoltaic-powered reverse osmosis desalination systems for remote locations. Renewable Energy,36(12), 3246-3256.
Blue & Green Tomorrow (2015). #COP21: World’s Local Leaders Commit To A 100% Renewable Future. Available online at: http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2015/12/04/cop21-worlds-local-leaders- commit-to-a-100-renewable-future/
Boniface, B. & Cooper, C. (2009). Worldwide Destinations Casebook (2nd Ed.) The Geography of Travel and Tourism. Elsevier Ltd. New York. Pp. 45-251.
CAN (Climate Action Network International) (2015). Long Term Global Goals for 2050 Phase out all fossil fuel emissions and phase in 100 % Renewable Energy. Available online at: http://www.climatenetwork.org/sites/default/files/can_position- long_term_global_goals_for_2050.pdf
Cantor, M. (2011) "Development for the Past, Present, and Future: Defining and Measuring Sustainable Development". Senior Honors Projects. Paper 305. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/305
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI). (2012). Environmental mainstreaming in the British Virgin Islands - Final Project Report. Greening the Economy - Towards Sustainable Development for the BVI.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 339 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Climate Students (2015). Small Island Developing States at COP21. https://climatestudents.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/small-island-developing- states-at-cop21/#_ftn2
CTA Brussels (2015). SIDS set example for large polluters ahead of COP 21. http://brussels.cta.int/index.php?option=com_k2&id=10515&view=item&Itemid
Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 2:1–6.
Elkington, J. (1994). "Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development," California Management Review 36, no. 2: 90–100.
Favro, S. & Brebbia, C.A. (Eds.). (2013). Island Sustainability II. WIT Press. Southhampton. UK.
GENI (Global Enegy Network Institute) (2008). Renewable Energy Potential of Small Island States.
Global Footprint Network (2015) A. Earth Overshoot Day. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Global Footprint Network (2015) B. Footprint Basics – Overview. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overv iew/
Goodland, R. (2012). Sustainability: Human, Social, Economic and Environmental. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Hitchcock, D. and Willard, M. (2011). Confused about Social Sustainability? International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP). https://www.sustainabilityprofessionals.org/system/files/Confused%20about%20s ocial%20sustainability_0.pdf
HOTELCO2 (2015): The online solution to CO2 emissions reporting for hotels. http://hotelco2.com/index.php
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2014-A). Renewable Energy Opportunities for Small Islands.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2014-B). Renewable Islands: Settings for Success.
Island Resources Foundation. (2012). An Environmental Profile of the Island of Virgin Gorda, British Virgin Islands, including Eustatia, Mosquito, Necker, Prickly Pear, Saba Rock, The Dog Islands, Broken Jerusalem, Fallen Jerusalem, and Round Rock. Island Resources Foundation. Tortola, British Virgin Islands and Washington, DC. Pp. 255.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 340 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
International Tourism Partnership (ITP). (2014). Environmental Management for Hotels: The Industry Guide to Sustainable Operations. Retrieved May 1st, from http://www.greenhotelier.org/category/our-manuals/environmental- management-for-hotels/.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. & Comfort, D. (2014). Sustainability in the Global Hospitality Industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 26. Iss 1. Pp. 5-17.
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). North Point Press, ed. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Pr. pp. 56–57. ISBN 978-0-86547-587-8.
Pauli, G. (1999). Upcycling - Wirtschaften nach dem Vorbild der Natur für mehr Arbeitsplätze und eine saubere Umwelt (In German). Munich. Riemann.
Peralta, E. (2015). Some 150 World Leaders Gather In Paris For U.N. Climate Conference. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/30/457845456/147-world- leaders-gather-in-paris-for-u-n-climate-conference
Purkis, J. & Miller, K. (2012). British Virgin Islands Sustainable Capacity Building Program Summary Report. The Natural Step.
Robertson, P. (2015). BVI Remains Under Drought Watch: Only 3.5 Inches of Rain in 2015. Department of Disaster Management. British Virgin Islands Government. Available online: http://www.bvi.gov.vg/media-centre/bvi-remains-under-drought-watch- only-35-inches-rain-2015
Rogers, T., Chmutina, K. & Moseley, L.L. (2012). The potential of PV installations in SIDS – an example in the island of Barbados. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. Vol. 23 – Iss. 3. Pp. 284 – 290.
Slaper, T. and Hall, T. (2011). “The Triple Bottom Line: What is it and How does it Work?”. Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center. Retrieved Nov. 10th, at http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/pdfs/article2.pdf.
Summit Secretariat (2013). Summary of CCI Summit Outcomes - Outcomes of the Caribbean Summit of Political and Business Leaders to launch the second phase of the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI). British Virgin Islands.
Tapper, R., Hadjikakou, M., Noble, R., Jenkinson J. (2011). The impact of the tourism industry on freshwater resources in countries in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, North Africa and other regions. Tourism & Freshwater Resources: Report to the Travel Foundation. Available online: http://www.thetravelfoundation.org.uk/images/media/Tourism__water_resources _in_destinations_report_Aug_2011.pdf
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 341 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The Guardian. (2015). The Guardian view on the climate change summit: there is no planet B. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/the-guardian-view- on-the-climate-change-summit-there-is-no-planet-b
Thwink.org (2014). Three Pillars of Sustainability. Available online at: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ThreePillarsOfSustainability.htm
Tischner, U. (2015). “How to do Ecodesign”. Federal Environment Agency. 2nd Edition.
UNDSD (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), 2015. Sustained and Sustainable, Inclusive and Equitable Economic Growth with Decent Work for All. SIDS Action Platform. http://www.sids2014.org/index.php?page=view&type=2011&nr=1&menu=1619
UNEP (1998). Management of wastes in small island developing States. Commission on Sustainable Development, Sixth session. Available online: http://islands.unep.ch/dd98-7a2.htm
UNEP (2003). A Manual for Water and Waste Management: What the Tourism Industry Can Do to Improve Its Performance. Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. Available online at: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0015xPA- WaterWaste.pdf
UNEP (2012). Integrated Water Resources Management Planning Approach for Small Island Developing States. United Nations Environment Programme. Available online at: http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/docs/Integrated_Water_Resources_Man agement.pdf
UNEP (2014). Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States - Results of the UNEP Foresight Process. Available online at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/Emerging_issues_for_small_island_developing_states.p df
UNEP, UN DESA and FAO (2012), SIDS-FOCUSED Green Economy: An Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities. Available online at: www.unep.org/greeneconomy and www.unep.org/regionalseas
UNESCO (2010). Adapting to climate change and educating for sustainable development. Sandwatch. Paris.
UNFCC (2015). http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/in-session/items/9320.php
United Nations (1987). Our Common Future - Brundtland Report. Oxford University Press.
United Nations (2010). General Assembly - Sixty-fourth session, Agenda item 48: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010. Available online: http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/RES/64/292&lang=E
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 342 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015). Carbon Footprint Calculator. http://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/.
UN-OHRLLS (UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States). (2015). COP 21-High Level Event on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Climate Challenge.
UNWTO (1998). Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. UNWTO, Madrid, Spain.
UNWTO (2014). Tourism in Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Building a more sustainable future for the people of Islands.
UNWTO (2015). Tourism Highlights – 2015 Edition. http://www.e- unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284416899.
van Sebille, E. (2015). COP21: The last chance for Small Island Developing States. Grantham Institute. https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/cop21-the-last- chance-for-small-island-developing-states/
Varela‐Acevedo, E., Eckert, K.L., Eckert, S.A., Cambers, G. & Horrocks, J.A. (2009). Examining the Effects of Changing Coastline Processes on Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting Habitat. Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Characterization Manual, North Carolina, USA. Pp. 46‐97.
Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) (2015). The Second Conference on Water Resource Sustainability Issues on Tropical Islands – Rationale. Available online: http://www.wrrc.hawaii.edu/2015conference/index.shtml.
Wohlmuther, C. & Wintersteiner, W. (Eds.). (2014). International Handbook on Tourism and Peace. Centre for Peace Research and Peace Education of the Klagenfurt University (Austria), in cooperation with UNWTO.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 343 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
New approach on creating shared value in corporate social responsibility: Effective engagement with Indigenous stakeholders for community empowerment
*Gabrielle McGinnis & ^Tamara Young & °Mark Harvey
*University of Newcastle, Australia, [email protected]
^University of Newcastle, Australia, [email protected]
°University of Newcastle, Australia, [email protected]
Key words: CSR, CSV, tourism, sustainability, Indigenous, empowerment
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) to manage environmental, social and economic impacts has been widely researched in tourism. CSR in tourism can make a contribution to sustainability, but the key to sustainable development is the inclusion of local communities in the planning and development processes. Huang, Botterill & Jones (2006) claim that ‘a socially responsible tourism organisation will fully consider what impacts on communities and the environment will result from…better balancing the needs of all stakeholders.’ (p.1). However, as Gilberthorpe & Banks (2012) argue, ‘the rise in CSR has meant safer technologies and better stakeholder engagement…there is little evidence of any real socio- economic development at the grassroots.’(p.185). There is criticism of the lack of non- western, local perspectives in tourism planning and management, and of poor delivery of CSR in practice (Alessandri, Black & Jackson, 2011; Filimonau, 2016; Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012; Nunkoo, Smith, & Ramkissoon, 2013; Visser, 2014). Limitations on stakeholder engagement are central to these concerns as are the various research approaches that can be used for engagement.
One of the major challenges associated with tourism development is that tourism planning has typically followed a top-down approach that fails to listen to the voices of local residents and, therefore, does not accord with the principles of sustainable tourism development (Mowforth and Munt 2016). This paper reports on a study conducted with the Wagiman Aboriginal community in Pine Creek, in the Northern Territory, Australia which addresses stakeholder engagement from the local, Indigenous tourism stakeholders’ perspectives. The focus of this paper is to understand the relationship between CSR and the ways by which tourism researchers, planners and managers can effectively engage with Indigenous stakeholders during research. We argue that various methodologies and research
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 344 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
approaches should be considered, and culturally appropriate and relevant uses of language should be explored.
While there is increased scholarly interest in Indigenous research methodologies, there is little research on these being put into practice with Aboriginal communities (Denzin, Lincoln & Smith, 2008; Goodson & Phillmore, 2004; Nunkoo et al, 2013). Indeed, few studies address engagement methodologies for interacting with Indigenous stakeholders when conducting ethnographic, qualitative research.
Qualitative methodologies and mixed-method approaches are increasingly used for empirical evidence-based knowledge. Some argue that as qualitative data is based in contextualized life experiences, it therefore provides a more reliable basis for in-depth analysis of tourism phenomena than quantitative data (Denzin, 2009; Goodson & Phillmore, 2004). Also, Goodson & Phillmore’s (2004, p.31) inquiry paradigm in qualitative research methods stresses the need to examine not only the type of approach in qualitative research, but also the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Lepp (2007, 2008) argues that adopting more local research methodologies can strengthen these relationships and can build trust between the researcher and the local participants. Arguably, such in- depth, contextualised data, analyses and local engagement can generate deeper, more transparent and authentic understandings of local, Indigenous knowledge.
Transparency and authenticity in data generation and analysis are central to CSR (Font, Guix & Bonilla-Priego, 2016; Garcia, Pinto-Rodrigues, Gibbon, Bernaudat, & Omedo, 2013). Thus, qualitative methodologies (such as, semi-structured interviews) and Indigenous methods (such as, storytelling) can generate comprehensive data while also empowering Indigenous people to manage and/or direct the research process (Lepp, 2007, 2008; Liamputtong, 2009; Smith, 2012). These types of processes tend to be multi-disciplinary in nature and can include anthropological methodologies as well as sociological, linguistic, tourism-related and other fields of research methodologies (Filimonau, 2016; Franklin, 2007; Nunkoo et al., 2013; Smith, 2012).
Crick’s (1982) work on the ‘anthropology of knowledge’ employs qualitative and mixed- method approaches with a call for more linguistic methodologies to the concept of “knowledge,” which includes “action, feeling and ideology” as well as “rules, values and beliefs” (p.287). Crick (1982) explains that these aspects are vital to the structure of social life and identity - how linguistic knowledge has to include cultural knowledge as well. As language and knowledge are strongly correlated, it is important to examine the effectiveness of the language used between the researcher and the local when conducting ethnographic research. Such research can further CSR by Creating Shared Value (CSV) in sustainable tourism planning and development.
Literature suggests that CSV effectively and transparently engages others for the purpose of value creation and product differentiation, with proactive and respectful attitudes amongst stakeholders in tourism (Alessandri et al., 2011; Font et al., 2016; Garcia et al., 2013; Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012; Nunkoo et al., 2013). Digital options create more opportunities
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 345 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
for longer-term product sustainability, heritage conservation, authenticity and indigenisation of the tourism sector (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Carson, 2008; Christen, 2005,2006; Nunkoo et al., 2013). Furthermore, limited research on theories of indigenized methodologies being successfully put into practice utilized digital options for knowledge sharing and tourism product development (Christen, 2005, 2006; Hunter, 2014; Yeager & Steiger, 2013). Sustainable development that utilizes Indigenous knowledge sharing can also advance Indigenous community empowerment and policy (Cole, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Denzin, 2009; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, 2008, 2010; Nunkoo et al., 2013; Zeppel, 2006). Aim
The overarching aim of this paper is to analyse the factors influencing the quality of methodologies being used to effectively engage with the Wagiman Aboriginal Community in Pine Creek. This paper examines the successes and failures of engagement with this Indigenous community based on three factors: (i) localization of discussions; (ii) specificity of tourism related activities in discussions; and (iii) the range of options available for participation in tourism development. Conservation of the social, cultural and environmental heritage of the Pine Creek area is a priority for the Wagiman community. Digital options for tourism product development and conservation of heritage are explored in the context of effective and transparent stakeholder engagement for CSR and CSV.
Method
Fieldwork for this study was conducted in Pine Creek throughout July and August, 2015. Interviews were held with the Indigenous community, non-Indigenous community, local government officials and tourism operators. However, different questions and uses of language were applied when carrying out discussions between these groups.
One objective of the study is to develop strategies for effective engagement with the Wagiman community in the planning and development of tourism in the area. The non- Indigenous, non-Australian researcher went prepared with a list of typical, semi-structured interview questions used in academia, industry and policy. Goodson and Phillmore’s (2004) inquiry paradigm soon became apparent when these questions turned out to be ineffective in generating valuable responses. Consequently, through discussions with the Wagiman community, the wording and language of questions were reviewed. Importantly, increased local content and more specific content were included to contextualise the questioning for the Wagiman interviewees. This revised question structure led to greater insights into the Wagiman community and into the development of the Indigenous tourism product in the area as well as stronger bonds between the researcher and the participants. The results, presented below, provide insights for tourism researchers, planners and managers committed to effective engagement with Indigenous stakeholders for sustainable tourism development that empowers local communities.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 346 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Results
The research reveals that four factors were effective in interviews with the Wagiman: (i) on- site vs off-site discussions; (ii) discussions of technological applications of knowledge vs. use of said technology during the interviews; (iii) discussions of specific activities vs discussions of general activities; (iv) Discussions of specific types of tourists vs discussions of tourists in general.
The type of language used in the research questions was found to be a significant factor in gaining valuable information about tourism product development in the area. It was also found that direct questioning was less useful than engaging Wagiman participants in discussions that allowed for ‘yarning’ and storytelling. The following questions, for example, were ineffective in generating a responsive answer:
Ineffective language use
Researcher: What is your role in the community?
Indigenous elder: Uh…?
Or,
Researcher: What do you call this tree in Wagiman?
Indigenous elder: Uh?
Consequently, engagement with the stakeholder led to a review of the structure of questions whereby local content and specific content were included.
Effective language use
Researcher: I am still learning about how you are all related here in Pine Creek. Could you tell me a little bit about your family?
Or,
Researcher: What you call ‘em tree in language?
These questions generated more successful and extensive discussions on family histories including one’s role within the community, as well as Indigenous names and significance of plants and animals. This, in turn, provided more Indigenous input on local life, identity and culture of the area. By applying more local culture and language into the research process and questions, more successful responses could be generated.
After reviewing the type of questions and language used, the aforementioned four influential factors in interviewing this Aboriginal community could be found. Being on-site, at the place of discussion, was found to be most significant in generating active engagement
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 347 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
from Indigenous participants. For instance, Umbrawarra National Park and Gorge is a popular tourist destination located 29km outside of Pine Creek. It is also, however, a significant bio-cultural site and destination for the Wagiman community of Pine Creek. When asking questions about Umbrawarra Gorge and the tourism activities there, it was more successful to go to Umbrawarra Gorge and see what the tourists and locals were doing there rather than talk in Pine Creek about such activity at Umbrawarra Gorge.
Question in Pine Creek about Umbrawarra Gorge
Researcher: What do you think about putting a lookout at Umbrawarra Gorge?
Indigenous elder: Um, ya. That would be good.
Question at Umbrawarra Gorge about Umbrawarra Gorge
Researcher: Do you think we should put a lookout here? (while pointing to a flat top above the gorge only a few metres away.)
Indigenous participants: Yes! That would be good. We could also put some shelter, a BBQ,…
They continued to converse between themselves and the researcher on some tourism development options for the lookout.
However, as much of the knowledge of the Wagiman community in Pine Creek is provided by the elderly, and many places of interest are not easily accessible during most of the year, more off-site, digital options need to be explored. Interviewees were responsive to visual digital technology, such as Google Earth, which facilitates off-site engagement. Google Earth and other similar applications can facilitate off-site engagement due to its interpretational, participatory, open-sourced, knowledge-sharing capabilities. An exploration of digital options for engagement resulted from a discussion on technology which proved ineffective with older people of the community.
Question discussing the use of technology
Researcher: How good are you with designing digital maps for websites?
Indigenous elder: Uh…?
Discussions about websites in a general, abstract manner were also carried out with the same elderly participants. One interviewee was aged between 60-70 years and the other, a slightly younger interviewee, was aged about 50-60 years.
Question discussing the use of technology
Researcher: Do you think it would be good to develop a website about your culture for tourists to see?
Indigenous elder: (asked the younger Wagiman participant a question, not understanding
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 348 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the researcher’s question.)
Younger Indigenous participant: (said to the elder) You know? Them computer. For people to see stories.
Indigenous elder: nodded.
Later, three interviewees from three different generations viewed digital maps and the website with the researcher, who developed the maps and website. The elder, her daughter (aged about 40) and her granddaughter (aged in her teens) could interact with the researcher and the website and maps. The researcher asked questions based on content.
Question involving the use of technology
Researcher: Do you think we could put Wakdo here on this map for tourists to see?
(The two younger generations pointed to the area on the map and spoke in Wagiman for the elder, who seemed to be having difficulty understanding. Once the younger generations had explained, the elder answered)
Indigenous elder: Ah, Yes…that would be good…and the Hot Springs?
More responsive, collaborative content for tourism product development resulted once technology was actively used during the interview, versus being discussed in an abstract manner. The use of the technology being discussed during the interview also brought older and younger generations together to discuss tourism development, while also enriching the older generations’ technological skills.
For the Wagiman community in Pine Creek, knowledge-sharing through digital outputs is a preferred tourism product development option. Younger people had more experience and exposure to digital technologies and so engaged more readily on digital applications for tourism. They also showed an interest in assisting older people with digital technology, thereby promoting overall community involvement. However, the elderly were familiar with mobile phones and expressed interest in mobile applications. This was partly due to limited interests in face-to-face engagement with tourists.
Another effective factor was the use of specific activities of tourists and local, Indigenous visitors to the area. When both on-site and specific questions were used in interviews, the discussions with the Indigenous participations were most significant. Discussions that utilized technology during the interview provided more significant responses than discussing the technology in an abstract manner. Questions about the specific types of tourist were found to be of least significance.
As for questions regarding the types of tourists, these were found to be of marginal significance:
Question about the types of tourists visiting the area
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 349 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Researcher: What types of tourists would you like to see here?
Indigenous interviewee: Yes. All OK.
Various versions of this question were asked a few more times during the research process sometimes with more specific activities being mentioned:
Question about the types of tourists and their activities
Researcher: Would you be happy to see tourists swimming here? Would you be happy to see people from outside Australia, coming to swim here?
Indigenous interviewee: Yes. OK. That would be good.
The type of tourist did not seem to be a factor of interest or for further discussion for the participants from the Wagiman community.
As much of the current tourism infrastructure, policy and management of Pine Creek is operated by non-Indigenous residents, interviews were also carried out with non- Indigenous local participants regarding the current tourism infrastructure, especially that which promotes Indigenous heritage. Such consultations included those with a local, non- Indigenous representative of the Pine Creek Regional Town Council concerning the deterioration of the town signs and the vandalism of the “walk through time” Indigenous tourism product of the town.
Question about Indigenous tourism with a non-Indigenous local policy maker
Researcher: What happened to the mosaics of the walk through time feature? Some pieces seem to be missing.
Council representative: Ah yes, many of the Aboriginal people were upset with some of the Aboriginal names for animals appearing on the plaque.
Researcher: Why?
Council representative: Because they were not asked about it beforehand. We have learned our lesson now though and will be sure to ask them before doing something like this again.
More frequent and effective consultations with the Wagiman community is needed before implementing Indigenous knowledge into the tourism infrastructure of the town as to avoid any violations of cultural heritage, knowledge and other sensitivities. This interview demonstrates the need to implement better CSR and CSV for sustainable tourism development with more effective Indigenous stakeholder engagement.
Conclusion
There are options for government and regional tourism planners and managers to interact in more productive ways with Indigenous communities and to facilitate cross-generational
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 350 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
involvement. Enhanced cultural awareness and cultural capacity is essential for cross- generational engagement which, in turn, is an important aspect CSR in generating transparent and authentic local knowledges.
Research with the Pine Creek community has shown that local engagement, particularly on- site discussions about specific activities, is central to successful stakeholder engagement. The Wagiman community members who participated in the research were positively responsive to digital options for stakeholder engagement and heritage conservation in tourism. Given that the overall socio-economic situation of the Wagiman community is similar to that of many Indigenous communities, this suggests that our findings may be more broadly applicable. Digital options for tourism participation and heritage conservation provide more interactive opportunities for creating shared value between stakeholders in a transparent, participatory manner for the long-term
These findings provide specific responses to the call in much of the literature on CSR and CSV, for improved engagement with Indigenous stakeholders, which can be achieved through greater Indigenous perspectives in CSR and tourism research. It is the responsibility of tourism researchers and practitioners to examine multiple ways to maximise the economic, social and environmental benefits of tourism, at the same time as empowering local Indigenous communities through tourism development. Research, policy and practice must move beyond western perspectives in tourism management and engage Indigenous stakeholders in ways that they want to be involved, if they choose to be involved.
References
Alessandri, T. M., Black, S. S., & Jackson, W. E. (2011). Black Economic Empowerment Transactions in South Africa: Understanding when Corporate Social Responsibility May Create of Destroy Value. Long Range Planning, 44, 229-249.
Cardamone, M., & Rentschler, R. (2006). Indigenous innovators: the role of web marketing for cultural micro-enterprises. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing(11), 347-360.
Carson, D. (2008). The 'blogosphere' as a market research tool for tourism destinations: A case study of Australia's Norther Territory. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 111-119.
Christen, K. (2005). Gone Digital: Aborginal Remix and the Cultural Commons. International Journal of Cultural Property(12), 315-145.
Christen, K. (2006). Ara Irititja: Protecting the Past, Accessing the Future—Indigenous Memories in a Digital Age. A digital archive project of the Pitjantjatjara Council. Museum Anthropology, 29(1), 56-60.
Cole, S. (2006a). Cultural Tourism, Community Participation and Empowerment. In M. K.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 351 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Smith & M. Robinson (Eds.), Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Participation and (Re)Presentation (pp. 89-103). Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications.
Cole, S. (2006b). Information and Empowerment: the Keys to Achieving Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629-644.
Cole, S. (2007). Beyond Authenticity and Commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 943-960.
Crick, M. R. (1982). Anthropology of Knowledge. Annual Reviews of Anthropology. pp. 287- 313.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y.S. & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodolgies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research(9), 139-160.
Filimonau, V. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Analysis in Tourism: A Critical Review of Applications and Implications. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Font, X., Guix, M., & Bonilla-Priego, M. J. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value. Tourism Management, 53, 175- 186.
Franklin, A. (2007). Chapter 9 - The Problem with Tourism Theory. In I. A. P. Morgan (Ed.), The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies (pp. 131-148). Oxford: Elsevier.
Garcia, H. J. D., Pinto-Rodrigues, M. M., Gibbon, H., Bernaudat, L., & Omedo, G. (2013). Demonstrating the adoption and linkages of global best available practices and technologies (BAPs/BATs) in reducing land based pollution in the Collaborative Actions for Sustainable Tourism (COAST) Project in Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania. Environmental Development, 7, 80-87.
Goodson, L. & Phillimore, J. (Eds.). (2004). Chapter 2: The inquiry paradigm in qualitative tourism research. Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. Routledge. pp. 30-45.
Gilberthorpe, E. & Banks, G. (2012). Development on whose terms?: CSR discourse and social realities in Papua New Guinea’s extractive industries sector. Resources Poilicy, 37, 185-193.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an "industry": The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27, 1192-1208.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2008). Justice Tourism and Alternative Globalisation. Journal of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 352 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 345-364.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The Elusiveness of Sustainability in Tourism: The Culture- Ideology of Consumerism and its Implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(116), 116-129.
Huang, Y.T., Botterrill, D & Jones, E. (2006) “Corporate Social Responsibility and Marine Tourism Organisations. Exploring the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility between Government, Business and Higher Education academies in the UK,’ BEST- EN Think Tank VI. Retrieved from http://www.besteducationnetwork.org/Papers_Presentations/2226.
Hunter, J. (2014). Oral history goes digital as Google helps map ancestral lands. Retrieved from http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/oral-history-goes- digital-as-google-helps-map-ancestral-lands/article19566302/?service=mobile.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28, 876-885.
Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes Towards Initial Tourism Development in a Community With No Prior Tourism Experience: The Case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (1), 5-22.
Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand.
Nunkoo, R., Smith, S. L. J., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Residents' attitudes to tourism: a longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984-2010. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 5-25.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodolgies Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books Ltd.
Visser, W. (2014). CSR 2.0: Transforming Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility. London, United Kingdom: Springer.
Yeager, C. D., & Steiger, T. (2013). Applied geography in the digital age: The case for mixed methods. Applied Geography, 39, 1-4.
Zeppel, H. D. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. Cairns, Australia: CABI.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 353 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Challenges of the development of sustainable products in tourism destinations
Fabian Weber* & Barbara Taufer^
*Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Institute of Tourism, Switzerland, [email protected]
^ Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Institute of Tourism, Switzerland, [email protected]
Key words: sustainable tourism products, destination management organisation, tourism stakeholders, product management
Introduction
Tourism destinations have a responsibility to contribute to a sustainable development. Sustainable product development can aid the longevity of a destination by supporting local, environmental, social and economic aspects. This, however, requires a coordinated destination approach so that sustainability is perceived by guests as a tangible and recognisable product.
Destinations depend on their tourism products as key pull factors. The development of such products is very complex (Benur & Bramwell, 2015; Budeanu, Miller & Moscardo, 2016). While destination management organisations (DMO) are not solely responsible for sustainable development in tourism destinations, they play an important role next to approaches of companies and initiatives of the public sector. According to Timur & Getz (2008), DMOs act as central players and have the greatest impact on other stakeholders regarding the development of a destination. In the tourism industry, DMOs have the strategic responsibility to coordinate the overall supply of tourism products and marketing activities (see e.g. Bieger, 2008; Pomering et al., 2011). This includes all the products that are promoted and can be booked at a destination level. Therefore, DMOs are required to develop and to promote sustainable tourism and thereby take a leading role within the destination.
Improving the sustainability of a tourism destination helps in making the tourists’ experiences memorable (Manhasa, Manrai & Manrai, 2016). The development of tangible sustainable products through DMOs together with tourism stakeholders creates added value within a destination. It highlights the commitment of the DMO as well as the involved service providers, thus increasing the attractiveness of a tourist destination.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 354 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Aim
The applied research project conducted by the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, along with five Swiss tourism destinations, was geared towards how sustainable tourism products can be developed successfully in a destination. The following research question was addressed:
What are the key challenges for DMOs arising in the development of sustainable products?
Method
To ensure that the research leads to results which could be applied in the destinations, the researchers worked together with the Swiss tourism destinations of Arosa, Engadin, Scuol, Samnaun, Val Müstair, Interlaken, Lucerne and the UNESCO Biosphere Entlebuch. The main criterion for the selection of the destinations was a high level of relevance of the subject of sustainability in the destination. Other selection criteria were the different geographic locations and sizes of the destinations, as well as their level of development in terms of sustainability – and (of course) their interest to participate in the project.
A multilevel explorative method was chosen to help answer the research question. Each development phase was followed by an implementation and evaluation phase. This allowed the ongoing evaluation of the chosen method and the suitability of the associated tools. The approach also accommodated adjustments made by the participating destinations and an expert team. The expert group was put together on the basis of their expertise in the field of sustainable tourism and sustainability management.
The iterative approach included the following five main steps:
1. Definition of requirements for a sustainable product:
There are different methods for evaluating and obtaining sustainability indicators (cf. Nardo, Saisana, Saltelli, Tarantola, Hoffman & Giovannini, 2005). Based on a literature review regarding existing sustainability concepts and sets of criteria, the criteria for sustainable tourism products were determined.
2. Analysis of the initial position and products:
In addition to an analysis of the initial position, the existing destination product portfolio was analysed based on the criteria set which had been developed in step 1. An inventory was created and the products were evaluated regarding their sustainability level.
3. Definition of the strategy:
Based on the preceding analysis, the destination stakeholders determined the strategic direction for the development of sustainable products. The integration of the stakeholders is crucial, since lacking or ineffective stakeholder participation is a major obstacle to the realisation of sustainable tourism (Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 355 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
4. Development of sustainable products:
Products were developed in workshops, documented in a standardised project description and examined by the panel experts. Following critical expert review they were adapted and implemented.
5. Impact measurement:
The tourism industry should also monitor its contribution to sustainable development (Ko, 2005). In order to check whether the product portfolio of destinations has become overall more sustainable, a suitable evaluation tool was developed and implemented.
Based on the research activities and the experience of the project partners and experts, a manual was created. The manual summarizes the research results and supports its users with tools such as checklists, fact sheets and templates to help develop sustainable products.
Findings & conclusions
The project enabled the authors to answer the research question and revealed the most critical challenges for destinations that wish to become (more) active in the development of sustainable tourism products. The main challenges and the corresponding conclusions are shown in table 1:
Table 1: Challenges & conclusions
CHALLENGES CONCLUSIONS
1. High coordination effort Form a board consisting of the stakeholders that meets regularly.
2. Time pressure Calculate enough time for the development and implementation of sustainable tourism products.
3. Lack of resources Strategic planning and prioritisation of tasks is needed in order to address the lack of resources.
4. Insufficient quality of Sustainability alone is not sufficient for a good product. In order to the product develop attractive sustainable products, the integration of innovative aspects is crucial.
5. Lack of staff expertise Raising staff awareness and training is important to establish a corporate culture that considers sustainability.
6 Systematic approach Systematic processes, checklists and templates help to enable an organised and standardised approach and can ensure quality assurance.
7. Dependence on Inclusion and motivation of the service providers is crucial, since
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 356 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
stakeholders and they are needed for the development of new attractive tourism service providers products.
8. Lack of expertise of the Raising awareness and qualifications of service providers is tourism service needed. Additionally, professional assistance through auxiliary providers tools and checklists can be useful.
9. Insufficient Honest and transparent communication with visitors is important. communication with Interested visitors should have ready access to information visitors regarding (sustainable) tourism products and sustainable activities of the destination.
10. Efficient controlling In order to measure the effect of the measures and new products, clear objectives and a few but relevant indicators are required.
The applied research project makes an important contribution to the discussion of what it is that defines sustainable products and the associated challenges that arise when the products are implemented in the tourism market.
It has become evident that different aspects of a destination play a relevant role in terms of the success of sustainability, including; expertise, capability, guest mix, and so on. It also became clear that in a very practical approach, much simplification is needed. Sustainability concepts, abstract terms etc. must be prepared and applied in a user-friendly way. Furthermore, the project time line must be taken into account, as developing and implementing new tourism products in the context of joint initiatives is complex. Accordingly, a meaningful impact assessment of the achievement can only be carried out several years later.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 357 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Bieger, T. (2008). Management von Destinationen. 7. Auflage. München/Wien: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Benur, A.M., Bramwell, B. (2015). Tourism product development and product diversification in destinations. Tourism Management 50, 213-224
Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G., Ooi, C. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress, challenges and opportunities: an Introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production 111, 285-294
Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a conceptual approach. Tourism Management 26, 431–445
Manhasa, P.S., Manrai, L.A., Manrai, A.K. (2016). Role of tourist destination development in building its brand image: A conceptual model. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science (2016)
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper, OECD.
Pomering, A., Noble, G. & Johnson, L. W. (2011).Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19, 953-969.
Timur, S. & Getz, D. (2008).A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, 445-461.
Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi- stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management 36, 342- 353
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 358 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Third sector organisations and stakeholders in tourism management in protected areas, the case of visitor management
Julia N. Albrecht
*University of Otago, New Zealand,[email protected]
Key words: visitor management, NGOs, nature-based tourism, tourism management, protected areas
Introduction
This paper identifies and explains roles, functions and structures in visitor management of protected areas in nature-based tourism in New Zealand. Establishing the benefits and disadvantages arising from the implementation of any particular organisational structure, the key aim of the research is a better conceptual and practical understanding of visitor management for both the academic community and key stakeholders in the New Zealand tourism industry. The study comprises 1) an in-depth document analysis; and 2) (focus group) interviews with key stakeholders. Literature review
Visitor management includes guiding, interpretation and any other intervention that influences visitor behaviour and interaction with a place or attraction. It is the most important means to mitigate or avoid negative impacts of visitation such as congestion, pollution, or damage to flora and fauna at a site or destination. As such, visitor management interventions are at the core of tourism management, and they are implemented in every protected area that is open to visitors. In spite of this, the topic has received little attention in tourism research. The study looks at how New Zealand organisations such as the Department of Conservation, Forest & Bird, local communities and interest groups manage visitors by identifying their mandated and actual roles and functions as well as the benefits and drawbacks of the organisational structures that have emerged.
In academic literature, visitor management is under-theorised as well as lacking a universally accepted definition (Shackley, 1998; Leask, 2010). This study applies an inclusive description of visitor management: visitor management refers to all management tools and interventions that regulate the movement and behaviour of visitors in a destination (Albrecht, 2014). The study goes beyond previous studies of visitor management that have been largely concerned with ‘how to’ approaches (Mason, 2005) by taking a supply-side (management) perspective. It links management interventions to specific management stakeholders and the roles and functions that they are mandated to perform (and actually
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 359 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
perform) as well as their organisational structures. Emphasising that the capacity for appropriate management responses to and in preparation of visitation is increasingly relevant, Cheung (2013) explains for the context of Hong Kong how nature-based tourism has been changing from relatively low impact activities that often take place in specifically ascribed areas to higher impact activities. Similar changes in visitor preferences currently occur in New Zealand’s main target markets (Tourism New Zealand, 2015) whose preferred activities (some forms of adventure tourism, nature photography, hunting and fishing) often take place in ecologically sensitive areas and are associated with potential for negative tourism impacts (Mehmetoglu, 2007). Investigating Regional Tourism Organisations in New Zealand, Pearce (2015) highlights the importance of integration and coordination of organisations in the context of destination management. The similarities in the institutional and economical contexts may mean that organisational behaviour with regard to visitor management shows similar characteristics but this has not been investigated in New Zealand or internationally.
The study presented here addresses the following questions:
1. Which functions are performed by organisations in order to manage visitors in protected areas?
2. What organisational structures are in place to perform these functions?
3. What are the perceived advantages and drawbacks of these organisational structures? Method
The project takes a functional approach in that it assumes that the functions that a group or an organisation performs determine its structure. Research questions 1-3 are addressed using document analysis and focus group interviews. The following table shows the relationship between the research questions and the methods used.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 360 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: The relationship between the research questions and the methods used
Research questions Type of question Data
Which functions are Diagnostic: Document analysis, performed by organisations focus group interviews in order to manage visitors types/ categories of in protected areas? functions
What organisational Diagnostic: Document analysis, structures are in place to focus group interviews perform these functions? identification of organisational structures
What are the perceived Evaluative: Focus group interviews advantages and drawbacks of these organisational benefits and drawbacks of structures? organisational structure
The document analysis includes organisational overviews and protocols, tourism management strategy documents and plans as well as any further documentation recommended by research participants.
Participants in focus group interviews come from a range of organisational backgrounds. The Crown Conservation Estate including National Parks, conservation parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, scenic reserves, among others, is managed by the Department of Conservation. Tourism operators who have been granted a concession to do so may operate their private tourism businesses on conservation land. These companies are therefore also important actors in visitor management in the conservation estate. Other important stakeholders are community groups, local tangata whenua or private owners of land. As there is no standard set of stakeholders, a combination of all of these actors may be invited to attend the focus group interviews.
In order to obtain insights into functions and organisational structures of (visitor) managing agencies in protected areas in tourism in New Zealand it is important to select research participants and sample sites that reflect a range of different types of agencies. Selection criteria were a) the range of different ownership/ management arrangements, importantly including both public and third sector stakeholders, and b) significance for tourism as evident through visitor numbers and closeness to a larger (tourist) centre or gateway. The second criterion is important as protected area management involves many organisations with a focus on, for example, predator eradication rather than visitation.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 361 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Findings and contribution
As the study is still ongoing, this section provides only a brief overview of anticipated findings.
Research question 1 identifies the functions that organisations perform. It is expected that functions will differ significantly between public, private and third sector stakeholders as their responsibilities with regard to destination management, attraction management and visitor management are unlikely to be equivalent across protected areas in New Zealand. Research question 2 explores the different organisational structures associated with the performance of the functions that have been identified, while research question 3 considers their relative benefits and drawbacks. It is further expected that the research will identify a number of different organisational management models.
The research questions will thus clarify a) what organisations involved in visitor management perceive as their roles and functions with regard to visitor management, and to what end these are being performed, and b) the organisational structures and their relative merit. Findings will be relevant not only in the New Zealand context, but in all similar or comparable protected area governance systems. This includes those where there is a large dependence on government funding as well as a significant proportion of protected areas (such as Canada, the US, or Scandinavian countries).
Limitations
The limitations of this project are those usually associated with qualitative research (such as a relatively small sample size, researcher subjectivity, a lack of 'hard' data) and case studies (such as local grounding of findings and a resulting lack of generalisability).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 362 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Albrecht, J. N. (2014). Micro-mobility patterns and service blueprints as foundations for visitor management planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(7), 1052-1070.
Cheung, L. T. O. (2013). Improving visitor management approaches for the changing preferences and behaviours of country park visitors in Hong Kong. Natural Resources Forum, 37, 231-241.
Leask, A. (2010). Progress in Visitor Attraction Research: Towards more effective management. Tourism Management, 31, 155-166.
Mason, P. (2005). Visitor Management in Protected Areas: From 'Hard' to 'Soft' Approaches. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(2&3), 181-194.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2007).Typologising nature-based tourists by activity - Theoretical and practical implications. Tourism Management, 28, 651-660.
Pearce, D. (2015). Destination management in New Zealand: Structures and functions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(1), 1-12.
Shackley, M. (Ed.). (1998). Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tourism New Zealand. (2015). Target market: Active considerers. Retrieved 1 May 2015, from http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/markets-and-stats/research/country- and-market-research/
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 363 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
CSR and tourism practices in communities near mines: A South African case study
Felicite A Fairer-Wessels,
University of Pretoria,. South Africa, [email protected]
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, rural communities, tourism, mining
Abstract
There has always been a disparity between active mining and tourism mainly due to the socio-economic and environmental impacts of mines on both the adjacent resident communities and the areas taken up by the mining operation. Although heritage mining tourism has been actively and successfully pursued and developed in the UK, largely Wales, and Scandinavian countries, the debate whether active mining and tourism can have a mutually beneficial relationship remains imminent and will be explored in this paper.
The study aims to explore the relationship between the ‘to be developed’ future Nokeng Mine and its adjacent community, the rural community of Moloto, in terms of the role of corporate social responsibility of the Mine in embracing economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability in providing maximum development benefit through sustainable tourism and livelihood activities with the support of the Mine. Within the above context and considering the expectations of both the mine and the community concepts such as corporate social responsibility, sustainable (tourism) development and triple bottom line are discussed.
The Nokeng Mine and Moloto community are investigated as a case study with a qualitative research approach followed using interviews and focus group discussions with mine representatives, tribal council members and local community members. Being an exploratory study the findings are limited but indicate that the possible success of tourism and sustainable livelihood activities lies in the fact that both the Mine, through integrating CSR into the management of the company, and the Community are keen move away from confrontation towards constructive engagement since both parties should benefit – the mine in terms of obtaining labour and profit; and the community in terms of improved and sustainable social and economic conditions; with both parties realizing the importance to mitigate negative environmental impacts.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 364 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In conclusion, a relationship of trust is imperative between a mine and a community before a long term liaison is possible; and being an exploratory study it is limited as only one of seven small communities adjacent to a new mine development was investigated and therefore findings cannot be generalized to communities living adjacent to existing mines. Introduction
Traditional mining countries such as Australia, Canada and Chile have reached their mining maturity whereas African countries stand on the threshold of a magnitude of wealth in untapped mineral resources. Though potentially ‘rich’, Africa as a developing continent has millions of people living in dire poverty. While the mineral wealth of a nation has a strong bearing to economic growth and development it is ironic that rural communities where such minerals are extracted often exhibit little in terms of development (Debra, Quansah & Mtegha, 2013). In most instances mineral wealth has not been able to alleviate poverty, prevent environmental damage and contribute in a positive way to community empowerment and social improvement. Traditionally in a country such as Australia, rural community involvement has been considered secondary by most mining companies and has been largely unplanned focusing primarily on infrastructure provision (Harvey & Brereton, 2005). Though over the past decade this focus has changed with mines making an attempt to engage through consultation with local communities and operate increasingly as open systems (as opposed to closed insular systems with purpose-built mining towns).
This research explores a newly proposed mining development (Nokeng Mine) and an adjacent rural community (Moloto community), to determine the possibility of whether the mine (as a social entrepreneur) should encourage tourism through skills development and sustainable livelihood programs as catalysts for economic development within the community. The community would then be gaining an economic benefit not previously had, as well as an improvement in social standards that could be a win-win situation for both the mine and the community. Within this context South Africa as a mineral rich developing country has a statutory obligation to empower disenfranchised communities through social and labour plans and policies.
All South African mines must preside over a Social and Labour Plan according to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), No 28 of 2002. The ‘social’ component refers to the ‘social upliftment’ of communities within or adjacent to any mine; whereas the ‘labour’ component refers to the mine workers sourced from the specific community. Mines generally are challenged with the ‘social’ component of the Social and Labour Plan as they are obliged to offer tangible products and services on a continuous basis during the life of the mine, to the community in question. Examples of such products and services are medical clinics, schools, adult literacy classes, and more – but these products and services are usually not fully immersed into the social and economic fabric of the community, and thus do not offer sufficient livelihoods to most members of the community. For example, clinics are usually operated by the provincial health services with roving nurses
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 365 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
and doctors that visit the clinic on certain days; teachers at the schools are not always from the community and commute to other towns or villages; adult literary teachers are also not community-based and travel to the community on certain days to offer classes. In other words, the community is not directly benefiting in terms of job creation or economic benefits, as most of these products and services are offered on a top-down approach (or meta-level) and are not fully integrated into the grassroots of the community (Sakata & Prideaux, 2013).
For mines to potentially address this ‘social’ component in a sustainable manner a bottom- up approach should be followed, where community members take ownership of certain feasible ‘ideas’ (Sakata & Prideaux, 2013). In this respect the mine should take the role of ‘social enterprise or entrepreneur’ and preside as custodian of ideas, especially within the field of community-based tourism where many small business ideas can be incubated to empower community members over generations to come (Cole, 2004; Von der Weppen & Cochrane, 2012).
The study aims to explore the relationship between the Nokeng Mine and the Moloto community through the following objectives:
1. To determine the socio-economic profile of the Moloto community
2. To determine the Corporate Social Responsibility of the Nokeng Mine
3. To determine the role of the Nokeng Mine as social entrepreneur within the Moloto community
4. To determine the perceptions of the Moloto community regarding sustainable tourism development focusing on the triple bottom line:
5. To determine the perceived social benefits for the Moloto community due to future mining activities by Nokeng Mine
6. To determine the perceived economic benefits for the Moloto community due to future mining activities by Nokeng Mine in terms of tourism development
7. To determine perceptions of environmental challenges for the area resulting from future mining activities by the Nokeng Mine and the possible effect on tourism
Within the above context and considering the expectations of both the mine and the community concepts such as corporate social responsibility, sustainable development and triple bottom line need discussion. Literature review
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) (and mining) is defined by the European Commission as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society” (EC, 2011:6). Respect for applicable legislation, and for collective agreements between social partners, is a
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 366 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
prerequisite for meeting that responsibility. To fully meet their corporate social responsibility, enterprises should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders, with the aim of:
- Maximising the creation of shared value for their owners/shareholders and for their other stakeholders and society at large;
- Identifying, preventing and mitigating their possible adverse impacts (European Commission, 2011:6)
Hamann (2003:238-239) researching the South African mining context speaks of an evolving CSR definition that consists of the following elements: going beyond philanthropic community investment and environmental impact mitigation; embracing economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability in a holistic manner and providing maximum development benefit with CSR integrated into the core activities and decision making of top management of a company; and CSR entailing a mind-shift away from confrontation and towards constructive engagement. Warhurst (2001) states that many environmental disasters and human rights incidents over the past half-century have taken place in the mining or petroleum industries, in both developed and developing countries. Communities, also in South Africa have now become active participants in this landscape and mining companies and corporates are now bound to develop direct relationships with local government and local communities with transparent access to communication and information (Harvey & Brereton, 2005; Moyle, McLennan, Ruhanen & Weiler, 2013). This has resulted in the emerging fields of practice of community relations and community engagement in the minerals industry that involves a range of responsibilities and activities (Brereton, Beach, Callan, Cheshire, McKenna, Paulsen & Parsons, 2005; Kemp, 2004).
Social capital and the mining community needs clarification in this context, where the impact of networking, connecting and engaging people in community decision-making is often expressed as building social capital (Crawford, Kotval, Rauhe & Kotval, 2008:533). Empowering community residents through meaningful participation is said to increase the buy-in and enhance chances and speed of implementation of community projects while promoting a transparent and democratic process (Cooke & Kothari, 2001 in Crawford etal:533) and influences economic growth and development (Rupasingha, Goetz & Freshwater, 2006:83). Social capital promotes trust and cooperation that in turn increases socially efficient collective action. Within a mining context one could investigate the notion of (social) entrepreneurship where the mine can act as custodian and empower adjacent communities through relevant entrepreneurial ventures.
Social entrepreneurship is distinguished from the mainstream (commercial) entrepreneur by purpose: the primary objective of the venture is to use business skills to create “social” value through innovation. “Economic” value creation serves as the means to that end rather than the primary end in itself. As Emerson (2003) states that all organizations produce a mix of economic and social benefits, or what he calls ‘blended value’. In this context the mining
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 367 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
company/potential mine can be regarded as the “social entrepreneur” that aims to empower local communities to help themselves in economic terms and consequently uplift themselves socially.
Sustainable (tourism) development and the triple bottom line
Sustainable development from a mining tourism viewpoint is unusual (Cole, 2004:480) as it implies environmental degradation and unacceptable social and economic practices and conditions for the surrounding communities resulting in unsustainable conditions all round. Cole (2004) explores the compatibility between mining (heritage) tourism and sustainability that includes the fundamental principles of environmental, social and economic sustainability (Cole, 2004; Hunter, 2002; Sharpley, 2000), although political sustainability may also be considered since the mining industry is largely politically influenced and driven.
The triple bottom line’s methodology is predicated on the idea of sustainability, a term defined in 1987 report ‘Our common future’ by the UN Bruntland Commission, formally the World Commission on Environment and development (WCED), as practices that “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs.” Although the original definition represented an approach to sustainable development, it has since been adopted to describe sustainable business and articulates a philosophy of business that balances people (social), planet (environment) and profits (economics).
The concept of a triple bottom line is based upon the idea that business (mines) must be accountable for more than maximizing shareholder value. Sustainable business must strive to maximize stakeholder value, engaging in behaviour that will provide independent benefit to employers, customers, supply chains and the communities in which companies reside.
Considering the TBL paradigm encourages managers to think in terms of not just the economic bottom line, but also in terms of the social and environmental bottom lines. Research shows that an orientation towards a triple bottom line benefit companies by adding value to their relationships with stakeholders (such as local communities), by building brand loyalty, and by mitigating risk. Linking the concept of the mine (as social entrepreneur) and tourism
The UNWTO (2007) states that tourism has become one of the world’s largest sources of employment as it stimulates investment in infrastructure that assists in improving the living conditions of local people (Moscardo, 2014). The majority of new jobs and businesses in tourism are created in developing countries - this may help to equalize economic opportunities and keeps rural residents from migrating to overpopulated urban areas (UNWTO, 2007). Tourism entrepreneurship has been a growing field since the nineties, whereas tourism and social entrepreneurship appear uncomfortable bed partners as limited specific literature has been sourced. However, within a developing community context the combination of these two seemingly disparate concepts may be warranted as explained by Moscardo (2008:13) that in order to incorporate community capacity building into tourism
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 368 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
development decisions, as opposed to standard CBT (Community Based Tourism), one needs, after identifying the stakeholders and their roles, to identify a full range of development options (see findings); to create tourism knowledge and awareness, and build community capacity for it (see recommendations); to consider tourism in the broader development context, to conduct strategic planning (CBT) and implement plans (CBT) .
A similar disparity exists between tourism and mining, since mines have potentially significant negative social and environmental impacts contravening so-called ‘sustainable’ tourism. However, Hamann and Kapelus (2004: 85-86) state that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been playing an increasingly significant role in particularly mining companies’ narratives and practices also in Southern Africa. Critics on the other hand argue that for CSR to be anything other than greenwash it has to guarantee that companies are accountable for the direct and indirect impacts of their activities, and that CSR is primarily about projecting a suitable image to placate critics and ensure ‘business as usual’ (Hamann & Kapelus, 2004:86).
This however appears to be a thing of the past as mines (in South Africa) need to present comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and dedicate funds to rehabilitate the areas that are to be mined (Mining and biodiversity, 2014). Limited literature exists combining tourism and mining since mainly redundant mines are utilized as tourist attractions. In this case the mine is still to be developed and the careful consideration of the environment is possible. Therefore, the environmental impacts usually caused by mining might be mitigated in this case through an EIA.
The mine as social entrepreneur encouraging (financing) tourism through skills development programs as the catalyst for economic development within the community may sound like a contradiction in terms, but should the mine consider financing tourism and related livelihood activities, this could be to the benefit of both the mining company and the adjacent community. Then the community would be gaining an economic benefit not previously had, as well as an improvement in social standards that could be a win-win situation for both the mine and the community.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 369 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
CSR and tourism practices in communities near mines: a SA case study
The spatial position of the Moloto area within the larger Dinokeng area:
Figure 1: The spatial position of Moloto within the larger Dinokeng area and the optimal location for the Moloto Community Project (Public domain map sourced and adapted by the Department of Geography & Environmental Management, University of Pretoria)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 370 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The case study
The geographical area of this research lies north-east of Johannesburg in the region of Dinokeng. This area comprises 240 000 ha and consists of five rural impoverished local municipalities, one of which, the Thembisile (Hani) Local Municipality (LM) (in purple on map and to be renamed as Thembisile Hani LM) includes the Moloto community that will be explored as a case study.
Within this region lies the proposed future mining development in the case study, the Nokeng Fluorspar Mine (Pty) Ltd (referred to as the “Nokeng Mine”). This mine is an owned subsidiary of Sephaku Fluoride (Ptyd) Ltd which is an owned subsidiary of Sephaku Holdings Ltd that is planning to develop a fluorspar mine in the foreseeable future. Due to the apartheid regime Sephaku Holdings is a historically disadvantaged South African (HDSA) controlled minerals exploration, development and investment Company, with a diverse range of mining and exploration projects.
Although Gauteng Provincial Government has earmarked the Dinokeng region for tourism infrastructure, the Moloto community has no natural and few cultural resources to partake in tourism development. The rationale of the study is to engage the Nokeng Mine through their Social and Labour Plan to empower the Moloto community (and later the other four adjacent communities of Waterberg, Dr JS Moroka, Tsa Taemane and Kungwini) to become a sustainable community through either mining activities; sustainable tourism activities and/or sustainable livelihood activities. Of these communities the mining is still a large employer in the Tsa Taemane LM with the Cullinan Diamond operation employing about 1302 permanent mine workers and 510 contractors in 2013 (www.petradiamonds- sustainability report 2013.com).
The Social and Labour Plan of the Nokeng Mine, as stated in the MPRDA, is to consider the development of this proposed Nokeng Mine in the context of generally recognized standards of sustainable development by integrating the social, economic and environmental factors in planning the mining operations throughout the life of the mine. This will be accomplished by the following objectives:
- Promoting employment and advancing the social and economic welfare of people resident in communities adjacent to the mine; where specifically the Thembisile Hani Municipality with Moloto community consisting of three wards will be used as the case study for this research; and South Africans in general;
- Contributing to the transformation of the mining industry; and
- Extending Nokeng Mine’s contribution to the socio-economic development of the local and labour sending communities (Social and Labour Plan, 2010)
With regard to tourism the larger Dinokeng region has 274 tourism attractions and directly employs an estimated 3388 permanent and 1129 casual employees (Nokeng Project Tourism Supply Research, April 2008) with employment opportunities likely to increase. The
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 371 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
(Dino)Nokeng Tourism project offers a variety of experiences for both international and local tourists, including adventure, cultural and nature-based activities all within an hour of the Cities of Tshwane and Johannesburg. The main thrust of the Project is the Nokeng Game Reserve which is a public-private partnership between the Big Five Land Owner’s Association and the Gauteng Provincial Government and aims to promote economic growth and social upliftment by boosting tourism in the area. The Moloto community however is not directly involved in and feels a need for additional help for resources from the Nokeng Mine to grow their own tourism product.
Within this context mining and tourism seemingly have a potentially beneficial symbiotic relationship with local communities, such as Moloto, aware of employment opportunities in both cases.
Methodology
This exploratory study relies on qualitative techniques. Exploration is a useful manner of research when a clear idea of the problems to be met during the study is lacking. The current area of investigation is so new and vague that one needs to do an exploration to learn something about it (Cooper & Schindler, 2006:143). The following qualitative techniques will be pursued: individual depth interviews (more conversational than structured); participant observation (with participants in the setting experience), case studies (for in-depth contextual analysis of a few events), expert interviewing (managers from the mine), and document analysis (Social and Labour Plan, 2010). Once the above approaches have been combined four exploratory techniques emerge: 1) secondary data analysis; 2) experience surveys; 3) focus groups; and 4) two-stage designs. Of these the first three techniques are followed.
1. Secondary data: reports from the Nokeng Mine, Dinokeng spatial area, maps of the area, Mining charter, Mining Bill, relevant periodicals on mining and sustainable tourism.
2. Experience survey: seeking information from persons experienced in the area of study, tapping into their collective memories and experiences.
3. Focus groups: a group of people led by a trained moderator to exchange of ideas, feelings and experiences on a specific topic. Used in this instance to uncover the ideas and aspirations of the community ito what the mine can offer to enable job creation (through tourism activities) and the sustainable livelihood approach.
For this study the Nokeng Mine and the Moloto community is researched as a pilot project where two disparate ‘worlds’ are potentially linked. On the one hand, the mine as social entrepreneur is searching for feasible and sustainable ideas; and on the other hand, the community adjacent to the mine, with potential sustainable tourism entrepreneurs that can tap into the resources of the mine should their ideas be feasible to build their businesses.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 372 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Target population and data collection
The target population: comprised of 3 sub-sectors’: the Moloto Tribal Council members (8), the Moloto community members (17); and the Nokeng Mine representatives (4 in-depth interviews). An initial focus group discussion was held with 8 elders (male) of the community (nonprobability purposive sampling) to discuss and identify possible areas to be investigated during the interviews. Interviews using a structured interview schedule (informed by the focus group discussion) were held with 17 (6 female and 11 male) members of the community that happened (convenience sampling) to be present at the Moloto Community Room. Respondents represented various groups from the community, i.e. 7 Moloto community elders/members of the Tribal Council; 10 community members (2 small and medium business owners; 2 church group representatives; 1 school teacher; 1 nurse/clinic representative; 4 from women’s groups). A structured interview schedule was used to interview the stakeholders of the mine, i.e. the Nokeng Mine management (2); Nokeng mine officials (1), the Local Economic Development Manager (1). Examples of questions included: Do you as management feel responsible for the economic well-being of the Moloto community?; What do you think the role of the mine is in terms of the adjacent Moloto community?; What can the mine do to in terms of local development to alleviate the economic conditions of the Moloto community? Findings and discussion related to the objectives
In the following summary of the analysis of the transcripts of the focus group discussions and interviews (‘experience survey’), participants’ perspectives have been grouped according to the four objectives (listed in the Introduction) that were covered in the interview schedule. Where relevant secondary data have been included to enhance the discussion.
1. Socio-economic profile of the Moloto community The Moloto community forms part of the Thembisile Hani Local Municipality (LM) and had a population increase to 278,517 persons based on the estimates from the 2011 stats. This implies an annual growth rate of 1.3% and if applied over time, the projected population of the LM is expected to reach 350,000 in 2017. The population shows a typical age structure of a very young population distribution and all recent data indicate that the demographic profile of the Moloto community that the majority of the population (55%) is outside the labour market. This means that 45% of the population ranges between the ages of 15 and 50 years of age that need to look after the 55% population who are either too young or too old to generate income (Thembisile Hani Local Municipality. Final IDP Document, 2011- 2016).
The slow increase of the population can be attributed by a number of factors such as the prevalence of Tuberculosis, Cholera and HIV/AIDS within the LM that has led to expectations for the population to grow at a slightly decreasing rated. However, the main contributor of the decrease in the population growth could be attributed to the migration of people to the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 373 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
cities in search of employment as the people of this municipality are distanced from areas of economic opportunities. Migration from rural to urban areas is driven by the belief that the city is a centre of employment, social interaction, education and prosperity. In this way households manage to maintain a link to a form of rural agriculture whist at the same time gaining buying power in the form of passing traffic, and facilitating movement to town and cities with a view to finding employment (National Spatial Development perspective, 2006). The nearest concentration of employment opportunities is Gauteng (City of Tshwane and City of Johannesburg). The majority of people employed either migrates to these cities or they have to rely on public transport (taxis and buses) to get to their work. The Gauteng provincial government proposes that the majority of future residential and economic development in the region be promoted along the Moloto route that should serve as a local activity spine (Thembisile IDP, 2007/2008). Over 80% of households in all the municipalities have access to piped water inside the dwelling or nearby. The majority of the community also has access to grid energy (electricity).
2.Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of Nokeng Mine:
Findings from interviews with the Tribal Council and findings from the focus group discussions with the Moloto community members indicate that both groups are in the process of trusting the Mine that indicates a certain level of social capital. Social capital promotes trust and cooperation that in turn increases socially efficient collective action. This has been implemented by the Nokeng Mine with the appointment of a Social & Labour Manager has as sole responsibility of communicating and investing in a relationship with the Moloto community to reduce friction and gain their trust. Social capital also refers to norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness, as well as cultural values of compassion, altruism and tolerance that are imperative in a rural culturally based community such as the Moloto community that consists of heterogeneous ethnic groups, with the Ndebele group as dominant. Nokeng Mine will continue to engage with stakeholders concerned to clarify its recruitment process and other policies relation to preferential procurement and Corporate Social Responsibility. The impact of eventual mine closure will be addressed as part of the social and labour plan implementation although the significance of these impacts is regarded as low but the community at present.
Findings from the interviews and focus group discussions indicate that the Tribal Council and community members are in ‘the process of trusting’ the Mine, and all are of the opinion that the Mine will act in their best interests as an organisation and with whom they have a good relationship. In addition, the Nokeng Mine commits itself to implement a Skills Development Plan that includes full compliance with the skills development legislation; literacy and numeracy plan; portable skills plan; skills program plan; and learnerships. Most HR requirements are concerned with skills related to mining activities, and the only one related to ‘tourism’ are found under ‘the skills program plan’ that includes: business skills (financial management and project management), entrepreneurial skills (starting your own business, development of business plans), and agricultural/livelihood skills (crop farming, livestock). In addition, Nokeng Mine also intends to develop and facilitate a mentoring and/or skills development program for the small medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) from local
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 374 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
communities through applicable service providers in the area of operation. The Nokeng Mine is committed to ensuring that its workforce and the communities in which it operates are given the opportunity to timeously and cost effectively access an appropriate Adult Basic Education facility to promote further trainability for enhanced opportunities for advancement and deployment. (Social and Labour Plan, 2010:16).
3. Role of Nokeng Mine as social entrepreneur
As the term social entrepreneur implies not-for-profit or financial gain, the Nokeng Mine aims to act as custodian of skills development programs for emerging entrepreneurs for SMMEs. The Mine will not gain any profit from emerging tourism or related ventures and values its CSR in terms of the Moloto community. Potential community entrepreneurs however may have to consider the stakeholders in the venture – this may include the founder (King), the team (Tribal Council), the customers (community), the vendors (community) and investors (mine), where each may seek a different type of return in varying combinations.
The representatives of the Nokeng Mine regarded the Social And Labour Plan as the (legal) framework from which to approach any possible tourism development, and the Mine is viewed as supporting the community from a social entrepreneur perspective and is willing to discuss possible tourism developments to encourage job creation in the long term. However, the Tribal Council and community respondents indicated that they would prefer one or more of the following: an office for the Tribal Council, a community hall, an old age home, a nursery, a cultural village to attract tourists with facilities for women to engage in beading, traditional clothing, headgear, blankets and crafts, and accommodation chalets for tourists, local tours and conference incentives. The majority of community respondents and Tribal council members agreed that a cultural village was the most wanted asset. The Moloto community (that is part of Themsisile Hani LM) is very enthusiastic for a cultural village to be built. However, since four other local municipalities are also seen as adjacent to the proposed Nokeng Mine (i.e. Waterberg, Dr JS Moroka, Dinokeng Tsa Taemane and Kunguni) the suggestion is made for each community to have a mini cultural village consisting of 3 rondavels (round thatched huts): one for the relevant Tribal Office, one where crafts can be showcased and one rondavel used as possible accommodation. The suggestion of the Nokeng Mine management is to then to eventually built a “central” cultural village that is supported by all the communities with crafts and products. Whether the Moloto community would be satisfied with this suggestion has still to be investigated.
4. Moloto community perceptions re tourism development and triple bottom line
Economic: The findings indicate that the Tribal Council of Elders governs the area under the auspices of the present King Makhesonke. The Tribal Council makes decisions based on the needs of the community and present these to the King. The Tribal Council has not undertaken any recent projects for the community except the hosting of smaller events such as Heritage Day, September 2010 at the King Makhesonke High School when Mandla Mandela (son of the late Nelson Mandela) attended the event.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 375 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Findings indicate that the community respondents were all of the opinion that job creation is the responsibility of the Chief (King) and the Tribal Council, as the tribal council is seen as being ‘over’ the Mine (top-down approach). On the other hand, the Tribal Council respondents felt that the Mine and the community were responsible for job creation (bottom-up approach). The notion of top-down management is usually prevalent within a tribal patriarchal society and was not discussed in any detail as it was clear that the Tribal Council did not want to take responsibility for job creation and expected the (disempowered disadvantaged) community to do it themselves, or for the Mine to take responsibility for job creation.
With regard to employment creation there are currently nine people employed on the Nokeng Mine. It is estimated that approximately 577 short-term jobs will be created during the construction phase and 163 long-term employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the project. Nokeng Mine will employ local people for some of these jobs, as it is their policy to employ local people wherever possible. The estimated annual labour cost for the operational phase is over R30 million (E3000 000). This could have a significant positive impact to the local economy. This figure represents a significant employment opportunity within a municipality and a provincial region characterized by high levels on unemployment. Not only will the extended families of mine employees enjoy an improved standard of living, but the informal economy (hawkers, spaza shops, cafes, etc) will also benefit from an increased cash flow. It is estimated that about 70% of the semi- skilled labour will be recruited from the local villages/farms. Although the life span of the mine is expected to be 18 years, the full-time employment in the region will have a substantial effect on the economy.
With regard to enterprise development and in addition to the employment created as indicated above, the Nokeng Mining Company will in conjunction with stakeholders in the area support HDSA (Historically Disadvantaged South Africans) SMME development by procuring goods and services from them. The following services will be procured from local SMMEs: haul and dump operations on the Waterberg material; medical services (occupational hygiene and medicine); catering and events management; transportation; none-core security; gardening services; courier services; building maintenance; cleaning and supply of spares (S&L Plan, 2010:37-38).
Social: Education skills in larger Dinokeng reflect a limited skills profile with the majority of residents having had some secondary schooling. Education levels have grown steadily from the 2001 census especially in the number of persons with secondary and tertiary levels of education. The percentage of persons with no schooling has also declined. Currently there is promising matriculation levels part due to mining operations at Cullinan with a concentration area of higher skills. For the Moloto area to develop it would need to further increase the number of residents who have matric or tertiary education.
Findings from mining officials indicated that Nokeng mine undertook a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in 2009 as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and identified a number of positive and negative impacts associated with the proposed Nokeng
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 376 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Mine. The main negative impact related to possible increased traffic on the Moloto road where many pedestrians, especially children, may be involved in traffic accidents in attempting to cross the road. At the time Nokeng Mine had not undertaken any projects but suggested to build and finance the construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge. This aspect this did not seem important at the time of the exploratory study. The negative impacts related to potential impact due to raised community expectations, conflict over recruitment processes, and economic impact of mine closure. All respondents however were of the opinion that tourism would promote the cultural heritage and history of the area and create jobs. Some respondents felt that the larger Dinokeng area was a severe threat to the Moloto area as this contained game reserves and lodges and the heritage mining village of Cullinan.
Environmental: Findings indicate that an EIA was done in 2009 by Nokeng Mine to mitigate possible environmental impacts once the mine started operation; with the undertaking to recover the land to its former pristine state with mine closure (anticipated within 18 years of its opening). For this more than 30million rand has been set aside. The community in general did not seem concerned with environmental impacts and trusted the Mine to mitigate any negative mining related activities. Concluding remarks
Limitations are that this is an exploratory study in one of seven small communities adjacent to a new mine development and cannot be generalized to communities that live adjacent to existing mines. Due to time constraints it was not possible to secure an interview with a government representative from the Department of Mineral Resources to obtain a government perspective. Opportunities for future research would be to investigate other communities adjacent to ‘new’ mines, and compare these two communities living adjacent to existing mines; and to investigate the role tourism can play in job creation and economic empowerment of mining communities.
Theoretical contributions of the research indicate that it appears possible for a mine and local community to live in symbiosis if all the necessary precautions have been taken by the Mine to involve the community before the start of the mine. A similar study with a community living adjacent to an existing mine will in all probability indicate a very different perspective.
Practical contributions of the research indicate that involving a community adjacent to a proposed mine creates the opportunity to build relations and obtain the buy-in of the community. This however is only possible with the assistance of a dedicated Social and Labour representative that is viewed as trustworthy by the community.
Whether tourism is a viable solution for the community to engage in is debatable. The community could rather pursue the sustainable livelihoods approach and focus on life- supporting activities such as building, gardening, etcetera, that once established could feed into possible tourism activities. Craft making, growing fresh produce for lodges, laundry
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 377 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
services for lodges; building and maintenance of lodges and accommodation cottages, and more.
This paper can contribute to the wider discussion of tourism and CSR within the context of how a mining company can contribute to the empowerment of an impoverished rural community by assisting with skills and capacity building of community members for sustainable livelihood activities and eventually the development of tourism activities. (5895w)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 378 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References:
Bourke, P. & Kemp, D. (2011). The role of community relation’s practitioners as change agents in the minerals industry. First International Seminar on Social responsibility in mining, 19-21 October, Santiago, Chile.
Brereton, D., Beach, R., Callan, V., Cheshire, L., McKenna, Paulsen, N, & Parsons, R, (2005). Conference of the Minerals Council of Australia SD05 “People place prosperity”. 31 Oct-4 Nov, Alice Springs.
Brereton, D. & Pattenden, C.(2007). Measuring what matters: monitoring the contribution of a new mining project to community sustainability. 3rd International Conference on sustainable development indicators in the mineral industry, June, Milos Island, Greece.
Butcher, J. (2006). Natural capital and the advocacy of ecotourism as sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6):629-644.
Cole, D. (2004). Exploring the sustainability of mining heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(6):480-494.
Davis, R., & Franks, D.M. (2011). The costs of conflict with local communities in the extractive industry. First International Seminar on social responsibility in mining. 19-21 October, Santiago, Chile.
Debrah, A.A., Quansah, D.P.O., & Mtegha, H. (2013). An assessment of Ghana’s mineral policy in the era of sustainable development: a critical review of mineral royalties distribution for communities.
Edwards, J.A., & Llurdes iCoit, J.C., (1996). Mines and quarries: industrial heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2):341-363.
European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels, 25.10.2011.
Franks, D.M., Malhue, L., Acuna, M., Canelo, K., & Freiburghaus, C. (2011). Social performance indicators at the Collahuasi copper mine, Northern Chile. First International Seminar on Social Responsibility in Mining, 19-21 October, Santiago, Chile.
Hamann, R. (2003). Mining companies’ role in sustainable development: The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of corporate social responsibility from a business perspective. Development southern Africa, 20(2):237-254.
Hamann, R., & Kapelus, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in mining in Southern
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 379 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Africa: fair accountability or just greenwash? Development, 47(3):85-92.
Harvey, B. & Brereton, D. (2005). Emerging models of community engagement in the Australian minerals industry. International Conference on Engaging Communities, 14-17 August, Brisbane.
Kapelus, P. (2002). Mining, corporate social responsibility and the “community”: The case of Rio Tinto, Richards Bay Minerals and the Mbonambi. Journal of Business Ethics, 39:275-296.
Kemp, D. (2004). The emerging field of community relations: profiling the practitioner perspective. University of Queensland: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining.
Mining and biodiversity: evaluating EAP standards in the sector. 2014. WWF Technical Report (ZA).
Moscardo, G. (2008). Building community capacity for tourism development, in Community capacity building: an emerging challenge for tourism development, edited by G Moscardo. Oxfordshire: CABI:1-13.
Moscardo, G. (2014). Tourism and community leadership in rural regions: linking mobility, entrepreneurship tourism development and community well-being. Tourism Planning and development, 11(3):354-370.
Moyle, B.D., McLenna, C-L., Ruhanen., L & Weiler, B. (2013). Tracking the concept of sustainability in Australian tourism policy and planning documents. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2013.839694
MPRDA (2002). Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No 28 of 2002.
Parmenter, J., & Busch, L. (2007). Indigenous women and mining employment in Australia. SD07 A Climate for Change. University of Queensland: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining.
Rupasingha, A, Goetz, SJ & Freshwater, D (2006). The production of social capital in US counties. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35:83-101.
Sajatam, H., & Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotoursm: a bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6):880-899.
Sacconi, L & Degli Antoni, G (2008). A theoretical analysis of the relationship between Social Capital and Corporate Social Responsibility: concepts and definitions. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1182982 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1182982
DMR: Department of Mineral Resources, formerly the Department of Minerals and Energy.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 380 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Social and Labour Plan. (2010). Nokeng Fluorspar Mine. South Africa.
Von der Weppen, J., & Cochrane, J. (2012). Social enterprises in tourism: an exploratory study of operational models and success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3):497-511.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 381 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Session 4: C(S)R Communication, Education and C(S)R-related Consumer Attitudes/Behaviour
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 382 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The act of giving: Understanding corporate social responsibility in the Buddhism context of Myanmar
Nicole Häusler & Kathrin Dischereit,
Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Germany, [email protected]
NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences and Wageningen University, The Netherlands, [email protected]
Keywords: Buddhism, corporate social responsibility (CSR), tourism, Myanmar
Introduction
Since its transition from a country under military rule to a democracy in 2011, Myanmar has become the focus of growing public recognition and interest. This attention has been stimulated by the country’s increased political stability, its extraordinary hospitality, and the genuine friendliness of its people. International tourists are finding Myanmar to be a pristine destination, and the rise in tourism is also supported by higher incomes among its neighbours, providing greater spending power for leisure and tourism activities in the area (Kraas, & Häusler, 2016).
Tourism has the potential to contribute significantly to the future of Myanmar through the creation of jobs and economic growth (MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB, 2015). Although increased tourism can also have negative consequences, two encouraging policy statements have emerged from meaningful discussions among multistakeholders concerning the development of responsible tourism: the Myanmar Responsible Tourism Policy and the Policy on Community Involvement in Tourism (MoHT, 2012, 2013).
The guiding objectives and principles of these policies are expressed in the following vision statement:
We intend to use tourism to make Myanmar a better place to live in – to provide more employment and greater business opportunities for all our people, to contribute to the conservation of our natural and cultural heritage and to share with us our rich cultural diversity. We warmly welcome those who appreciate and enjoy our way of life and who travel with respect (MoHT, 2012, p. 6).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 383 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Due diligence will be needed in achieving the aims outlined in these strategy papers, especially in the private sector, in order to monitor the potential impact of business activities on the country’s society and environment. This must involve making “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) practices a part of core businesses in the tourism sector.
However, a question that arises in this connection is whether a country can shift its business attitudes towards sustainable development and implement responsible tourism (as a best- case example) when for decades it has suffered from a weak legal framework and has pampered what are considered to be crony companies, which exploited the country with illegal trade in timber, drugs and weapons with hardly any penalties (Ko Ko Thett, 2012)?
According to Nicole Häusler, a co-author of this article and an advisor on responsible tourism in Myanmar for the past three years, Myanmar’s tourism sector has shown little interest in incorporating CSR into its day-to-day business activities despite the efforts of the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism to promote responsible tourism in the country. In 2015 Myanmar was considered the highest-ranking country in terms of generosity, and it secured first place for its volunteer efforts. However, over this same period of time, this author observed that many Myanmar companies interpreted the concept of CSR to mean donating to the poor – an act that is deeply embedded in Buddhist belief. We therefore raised the question: Is a deeper understanding of Buddhism needed to implement CSR successfully in Buddhist countries such as Myanmar?
This complex question cannot be addressed here, but we have taken the first step towards understanding what CSR means with regard to the Myanmar tourism sector and recognize the need to link this understanding to the culture of Buddhism, which is an integral part of the everyday lives of Myanmar’s population. Research Aim
This study is being undertaken in an attempt to answer this question and to determine whether Buddhist philosophy can be incorporated into the training and awareness campaigns related to initiatives to integrate CSR in order to assure sustainable development of the core business operations in Myanmar’s tourism sector, and if so, how. The goals of our investigation are to determine what tour operators currently know about CSR and to evaluate the impact of Buddhism in the context of Myanmar.
The following considerations include a review of the literature, with a focus on the key issues to be covered here, such as Myanmar and its tourism context, as well as a discussion of the term ‘corporate social responsibility’ and the act of giving in a Buddhist context. We then provide an outline of the research being undertaken, including its methodology, design and limitations. In the final section, we present our findings and their implications and conclude with recommendations for implementing CSR in Myanmar.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 384 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Literature Review
This section begins with an overview of the historical and political background of Myanmar, including the development of tourism. This is followed by a brief discussion of the concept of CSR and its underlying premises and theories. We then elucidate the act of giving as a tenet of Buddhism. All the issues are interlinked in the context of Myanmar and are relevant for the purposes of this paper.
Historical and Political Background of Myanmar
This study focuses on the current status of CSR in Myanmar, a country now moving in the direction of a democracy. Crucial to understanding the context of the study being described here is an insight into the complexities that have emerged as a result of Myanmar’s critical historical and political background.
Myanmar can be said to be in a “fragile state of insecurity” (Howe & Jang, 2013) as a consequence of its previous lack of development and its political instability, as well as of its ongoing ethnic conflicts. Underlying this critical condition is the decade-long military rule under General U Ne Win (1962-1988) along with the quasi-socialist economy (David & Holliday, 2012). The beginning of 2011 marked the transition towards democracy, with the government making determined efforts to promote liberal economic and political reforms (Christie & Hanlon, 2014). At that time, former general U Thein Sein became the 8th President of Myanmar and introduced a new, people-centred policy framework that supports sustainable development (MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB, 2015). U Thein Sein began conversations with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and head of the National League for Democracy (NLD), who in November 2010 was released after more than 15 years under house arrest. In the elections of November 2015, the NLD won 77.1 per cent of the seats (887), thus granting NLD a majority in both houses of parliament; 10 per cent of the seats are reserved for military-aligned parties, and one quarter of the seats are still occupied by military representatives (Holmes, 2015).
Even though the 2015 elections represent a milestone in Myanmar’s history, the transition towards a democratic state is a long-term process that requires patience and endurance. Myanmar is going through a “triple transition” (MCRB, DIHR, IHRB, 2015, p. 31) – from an authoritarian military system to democratic governance, from a centrally directed economy to a market-oriented one, and, lastly, from 60 years of ethnic conflict towards reconciliation. Added to these already complex developments are even more challenges. Major obstacles include the outdated judiciary, which has not undergone reform since the days of military rule, and the high degree of corruption among authorities in Myanmar (Häusler, 2016).
Development of Tourism in Myanmar
Factors that provide significant potential for tourism in Myanmar include not only the major religious and cultural landmarks – the most prominent of which are the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon and the world’s largest pagoda field in the Bagan plains – but also the traditions of the many ethnic groups that live in Myanmar and the diversity of the natural and cultural
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 385 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
landscape (Kraas & Häusler, 2016).
After the country had become independent in 1948, freedom of residence and movement were restricted by the consequences of the Anglo-Burmese wars, civil war and, from 1962 onwards, the nationalization of the country’s industry and Myanmar’s international isolation that resulted from the ‘Burmese Way to Socialism’. It was not until a market-oriented economy had been introduced in 1988 that a promotion of tourism could begin. In 1996 the Visit Myanmar Year marketing campaign was conducted, which specifically and systematically promoted the development of tourism in the country in general and of a handful of key tourism areas in particular, namely the ‘classical quadrangle’ Yangon – Bagan – Mandalay – Inle Lake. For a long time, tourism development of the country’s peripheries was impossible, not least because of the inadequate transportation and supply infrastructures and the resulting poor accessibility (Kraas & Häusler, 2016).
The number of tourists started to soar as a result of the recent transformation process in the country. In 2015, 2.5 million domestic tourists were recorded, most of whom visited pilgrimage sites on weekends or visited family members (MoHT, 2016).
Whereas in 2010 Myanmar recorded just below 800,000 foreign visitors, by 2012, their number had increased to over a million, and in 2015 the country attracted about 4.6 million tourists from across the world. However, these numbers, which were published by the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, do not hold up to scrutiny because they include day-trippers from the neighbouring countries who engage in border trade or visit family members (Ei Ei Thu & Kean, 2015). The official numbers of visitors to the Shwedagon Pagoda, the landmark of Yangon, provide a more realistic picture. In 2015 the pagoda was visited by half a million tourists. Given that other major destinations that are primarily visited by Western and Japanese tourists, such as Bagan and Lake Inle, attracted about 250,000 visitors, it would be more realistic to assume that a total number of 500,000 tourists came to Myanmar in 2015; their exact number has not been published (Kraas & Häusler, 2016).
The development of tourism is considered to be one of Myanmar’s priority sectors (MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB, 2015). It is described as potentially one of Myanmar’s most important sectors, with tremendous potential to contribute to greater business opportunities and balancing social and economic development if properly managed and developed (MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB, 2015, p. 44).
This statement clearly shows that tourism in Myanmar has been identified as one of the most important sectors, one that has the potential for balanced, sustainable development. This brings us to the discussion of the meaning and understanding of CSR.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 386 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Our Understanding of CSR
In this section, we describe what CSR means to us and assess the extent to which it has been addressed in the academic literature. At a later point, we will discuss what CSR means to those working in the private sector in Myanmar.
Corporate social responsibility is a recent concept that has been discussed extensively in the academic literature. However, we still chose to work with the definition provided by The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard, because it covers a wide range of aspects related to CSR:
Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them. It goes beyond philanthropy and compliance and addresses how companies manage their economic, social, and environmental impacts, as well as their relationships in all key spheres of influence: the workplace, the marketplace, the supply chain, the community and the public policy realm (CSRI Online, 2013, as cited in Christie & Hanlon, 2014, p. 15).
In addition, we subscribe to the principles of CSR compiled by Balàš & Strasdas (2015, pp. 235–236, translated by the authors) as they give more detailed and structured input towards the implementation of CSR:
Voluntariness – CSR starts when a company’s activities extend beyond legal compliance. It is a form of proactive self-commitment driven by motivation. However, voluntariness does not mean that CSR is arbitrary or does not come with obligations. Voluntariness is constantly monitored by civil society, including non-governmental organisations, as well as by competitors.
Management orientation – The implementation of CSR can only be successful if it is understood as a holistic management approach. A consistent company culture with a focus on sustainability must be designed, with participation ranging from the board of management to all other areas of the company. Ideally, financial and human resources should be established for this venture.
Value chain orientation – CSR requires the consistent integration of sustainability aspects along the entire value chain.
Stakeholder orientation – Companies bear responsibility for the stakeholders that are affected by their corporate activities. When adopting a philosophy of CSR, both internal stakeholders (e.g. employees) and external stakeholders (e.g. local communities) must be considered.
Triple bottom line – CSR requires that the orientation and evaluation of the organization’s activities be in line with the three dimensions of sustainability: social, ecological and economic performance, or “people, planet and profit”.
Process orientation – CSR is to be understood as an individual process: a continuous process
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 387 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
of improvement by a specific company will serve as the driver of long-term sustainable development. According to Grieshuber (2012), sustainability and CSR are developmental, educational and innovative approaches. Attaining sustainability is not an absolute, but corporations can continuously work on becoming more sustainable.
Transparency – Owing to the voluntary nature of CSR initiatives, corporations must clearly communicate their aims and policies. A company’s credibility regarding these initiatives depends on its level of transparency.
CSR can thus be understood as a concept that integrates societal, environmental and ethical factors, as well as human rights, in the business operations of corporations, with an emphasis on embedding the entire value chain and on continuing a dialogue with stakeholder groups that are directly or indirectly involved (Balàš & Strasdas, 2015). Balàš and Strasdas make the thought-provoking argument that sustainability and CSR should be seen as developmental processes with no specific point of origin or threshold for fulfilment. Consequently, it is impossible for a company to become completely sustainable or unsustainable – that is, the conditions of sustainable development must continually be adapted to meet new challenges to the environment and society, be they regional or global. In the context of corporations, this process will allow a transition from “sustainability- oriented corporate management” to “economic, societal, and environmental shaper”. In other words, corporations can change from being a regulated process manager to a regulating “game changer” (Balàš & Strasdas, 2015, p. 238; translation by the authors). Balàš and Strasdas (2015) also note that this role of corporations can have a broad and far- reaching impact “that goes beyond a corporation’s immediate area of influence and scope to shape” the area of tourism (p. 238, translated by the authors) – an interesting aspect for a country such as Myanmar to which we will return in the section on the results of this study.
As is evident from the many and often fundamentally different definitions of CSR, there is no clear consensus about the actual nature of CSR and what it entails. For example, CSR has been described as an “unprecise concept that induce[s] wrong expectations and consequently disappointment for both corporations that implement CSR and civil society” (Schneider & Schmidtpeter, 2012, p. 18, as cited in Balàš & Strasdas, 2015, p. 233, translation by the authors). Confusion about this concept stems from the many modifications of the term ‘corporate social responsibility’ itself. In the academic literature, the terms ‘corporate responsibility’, ‘corporate governance’, and ‘corporate citizenship’ are often used as synonyms of ‘corporate social responsibility’ (Balàš & Strasdas, 2015). In the context of Myanmar, the term ‘corporate responsibility’ is used more often in existing reports and documents; however an officially accepted definition of CSR for Myanmar does not yet exist.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 388 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
CSR in the Myanmar Context
As a relatively new member of the global market economy, Myanmar is attracting an increasing number of foreign investors, many of which can be categorized as multinational corporations. Most of the recent literature on CSR in Myanmar addresses these non- Myanmar companies in particular and the extent to which they implement CSR in their business operations. According to the Asian Development Bank, Myanmar’s growth rate is expected to be the region’s fastest over the coming decade (Asian Development Bank, 2012). The trend towards increasing foreign investment can have unfortunate consequences besides the already negative business climate that has resulted from endemic corruption, systematic human rights violations, a weak rule of law and unstable infrastructure (Bissinger, 2012). According to Human Rights Watch (2010), the presence of these new investors in the country could lead to further social and environmental problems for Myanmar, such as rights abuses and the undermining of reform. Still, high-risk countries such as Myanmar are in dire need of responsible investment and improved extractive revenue that can contribute to widespread development (MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB, 2015).
However investors seeking to enter Myanmar are being encouraged to incorporate corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their business model. The push comes not just from Western governments and local and international NGOs, but from the former and current [and current; comment by authors] Myanmar government itself. The government is looking to demonstrate to Western investors, as well as new foreign investors from the region, that the investment climate is changing. The Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) now asks for information about CSR, and in some sectors makes an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) a prerequisite for obtaining MIC approval. The government has also embraced international standards and initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Bowman, 2014). Both government and civil society, as well as those companies keen to invest responsibly in Myanmar, are hobbled by the absence of modern environmental and social protection laws and a shifting regulatory landscape. There have been some welcome reforms on social protection, employment and freedom of association for workers, although they remain incomplete (Bowman, 2014).
These findings offer indications of the situation in Myanmar only with regard to foreign- owned corporations or joint ventures. But what about the many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Myanmar? Figures published by the government of Myanmar indicate that more than 90 per cent of the country’s economy consists of private companies, the large majority of which are SMEs (DEval, 2015). With regard to CSR activities in the area of tourism, the only research undertaken so far has been that of Than Hlang Oo, who published his master’s thesis while our study was being conducted (2016). His findings and ours are discussed in section 5.
Although little scientific data, if any at all, are available concerning the CSR activities of these SMEs, the World Giving Index, an annual report listing the countries that exhibit the most charitable behaviour, still ranked Myanmar the highest for its generosity in 2015 (Charities
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 389 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Aid Foundation, 2015). On the other hand, this may not be so surprising if we consider how devoutly religious the people of Myanmar are.
The Act of Giving in a Buddhist Context
Why, of all the Buddhist countries, would Myanmar be considered to be the most benevolent? Considering that most religions espouse charitable offerings, what is distinctive about the Buddhist attitude in Myanmar that led to such a high ranking?
To answer these questions, we have to consider the three principles of giving in Buddhism: the first principle, action (karma in Sanskrit), is central to Buddhist ethics; the second, the acquisition of merit (punna), is a prominent theme; and the third principle, making donations, is a major aspect of one’s identity as a devout Buddhist. An important Myanmar sentiment is expressed in the phrase “ahlu yay sat lat nae ma kwar” – literally, “your hands are always close to offering donations (Fuller, 2015)
There are several distinctive features of Myanmar Buddhism that highlight the profound importance of charity in the culture and help explain why Myanmar was at the top of the World Giving Index list. Indian philosophers consider action to be central to religious practice: when someone is reborn, it is what that person did in his or her previous incarnation (or incarnations) that determine whether that person’s life will be good or bad, and whether that person will have a long or a short life (Majjhima Nikaya, Book III, pp. 202– 203, as cited in Fuller, 2015). Intentional actions in a person’s present life thus are the basis for circumstances in that person’s future lives. As a consequence, unethical actions (akusala) will have negative consequences in the next life; conversely, ethical actions (kusala) will have positive consequences in future incarnations. The word ‘kusala’ refers to actions that cause no harm to oneself or to others and that are linked to compassion, wisdom and generosity – whereas hatred, delusion and greed are linked to akusala (Fuller, 2015).
If generosity leads to wealth in the next life, charitable offerings will have profound consequences, because the act of giving will influence a person’s rebirth. Its acquisition (in the form of punna) is a primary goal of Buddhists. By making donations, a person can accumulate such merit. By donating to hospitals or orphanages, one is being charitable not only to the sick and to abandoned children but also to the donor, because these merits will help prevent the donor from becoming sick or orphaned in the next life. Other activities that accrue merit are considered to have protective powers that extend to one’s family and even the nation, both now and in the future. An example of such an activity is the building of Buddhist pagodas, a highly popular practice among the political elite of Myanmar, mostly by generals during the period of military rule between 1962 and 2011 (Fuller, 2015; Zöllner, 2014). Thus, charitable activity in Buddhism has a strong metaphysical component that is very different from similar activities in other religious cultures.
The next section provides a brief overview of the methods used in our research.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 390 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Research Method
Along with the review of the literature and the participatory observation of one co-author (N.H.) since 2012, we conducted qualitative field research in Myanmar between February and May 2016 to gain more specific insights into how the concept of CSR was understood by a representative group of tour operators. We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with representatives of the tourism industry from different regional areas (Yangon, Nyaungshwe and Loikaw). The study population (interviewees) consisted of twelve tour operators (nine based in Yangon and three based in Loikaw), three hotel staff members and two hospitality trainers. The interviews were designed to identify what the interviewees understood to be the concept of CSR, their underlying motivations to implement it and broader challenges in the adoption of CSR in Myanmar. Depending on the communicativeness of the respondents, we asked questions relating to intrinsic Buddhist beliefs. We deliberately selected interviewees who matched three criteria: profession of tour operator, Myanmar nationality and based in Yangon or Nyaungshwe. The interviewees were selected and contacted before field research began; five additional respondents were referred to us by other interviewees (snowball sampling).
The sample size and research instruments used in this study resulted in some limitations. First, the investigation was focused specifically on CSR involving a discrete group of Myanmar tour operators. Therefore, our findings cannot be generalized beyond this target population. Second, the respondents’ knowledge about the subject of interest and their facility with the English language varied to a large degree, which required a certain level of flexibility on the part of the interviewer and may have led to minor inconsistencies in the research process.
Second, the responses and observation notes were open-coded and categorized according to the issues that proved to be central in the context of this study, namely Myanmar situation/workforce, understanding of CSR, CSR activities, Buddhism and other findings. We then derived several subcategories; those most relevant to our study are presented in the next section.
Research Findings
During the same period as our field research, Than Hlaing Oo (2016), in preparing his master’s thesis, examined several factors related to CSR. He interviewed ten managers (four hoteliers and six tour operators) from Yangon to determine what motivated them to participate in and adopt CSR, how they implemented the principles of CSR and what barriers they confronted in doing so. Than Hlaing Oo’s findings confirmed our assumption that Myanmar managers’ application of CSR is influenced by “Myanmar culture and traditions of philanthropic giving (Da Na), which flourished within Buddhist teachings and ethics” (Than Hlaing Oo, 2016, p. iv). He also found that the owners/managers of these locally owned and operated companies applied different meanings to the concept of CSR. In addition, in contrast to managers of foreign-owned companies, who tended to adopt CSR for business reasons (e.g. to improve their image), the local owners/managers tended to be motivated
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 391 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
by moral values (Than Hlaing Oo, 2016, p. 77). For the most part, our results confirmed his conclusions. Therefore, we have summarized both sets of findings according to three categories: the understanding of CSR, the role of Buddhist philosophy and the support of local communities.
Understanding of CSR Among Tour Operators: A Lack of Consensus
The most basic finding of this study was that understandings of the term ‘corporate social responsibility’ varied to a large extent among the Myanmar tour operators. There was no consensus as to what CSR actually means and what it actually involves. The tour operators’ responses ranged from having no knowledge of the concept at all to having quite extensive knowledge about it:
You mean the corporate means… What kind of corporate? (IP6)
We do business, we make money from the business, so we have to give something back to the community where we live, where we make business […]. We work with the local people together for the business, we contribute and work with them together. (IP4)
It became apparent that the respondents whose knowledge of CSR was quite profound cooperated closely with the larger, international tour operators and had most likely benefited from their expertise and access to information concerning this concept which confirms again Than Hlaing Oo’s findings.
The responses of some participants were somewhere between these two extremes, such as having a very different understanding of CSR in comparison to Western standards or never having heard of CSR but unwittingly engaging in it:
Many people are doing [CSR] without knowing that they are doing [it]. (IP5)
However, the majority of respondents knew that some socially or environmentally compatible activities needed to be undertaken whether or not they understood the concept of CSR as such:
It is about making revenue [as opposed to] respecting the soci[ety] and communities. In tourism, we show the site. We have to maintain these sites and care for the people that live in these areas. (IP8)
In general, the respondents’ understanding of and engagement in CSR revealed two tendencies, which are described in the next two sections.
Importance of Donations in the CSR Context in Myanmar
As we reviewed the transcripts of the 17 interviews, the issue of interest here, CSR, was dominated by one word – namely ‘donations’. Many of the Myanmar interviewees equated CSR activities with making donations. Donations often took the form of monetary offerings, such as to monasteries, because the monks are concerned with the common welfare of the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 392 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
citizens of Myanmar (e.g. taking care of the elderly). Other interviewees donated furniture to hospitals or schools. Another recurring response to the question ‘What is your understanding of CSR?’ was that it was an opportunity to donate in emergencies, such as during floods or other calamities. Myanmar experienced disastrous flooding in August 2015, with more than 100 victims and devastating consequences for agriculture and food security (FloodList, 2015). A number of interviewees considered the help they had provided in the form of food and other donations, as well as direct aid to the threatened areas, to be a form of CSR:
A couple of months ago, there was a huge flood, so we sent all our staff to the areas. We have a budget for CSR, so we bought rice and cooking oil, clothes and sent it to [those in need] – this is what we see as CSR activities. (IP4)
There appear to be three motivations behind the gesture to donate: the prevailing Buddhist philosophy, the generous nature of the Myanmar people and the oppressive political situation that characterised the previous half-century, when the welfare initiatives of the military dictatorship were either inadequate or completely lacking and the people had to take care of one another. In the interviews, looking out for others was often mentioned as a reason for making donations.
This is what we believe in. To help others. This is our nature […]. (IP8)
Buddhism always tells us to help people, to be kind to the people that are ‘lower’ than us. Buddhism always teaches to share. If you have a lot of wealth, you should always share with each other. That is why we are doing a lot of donations; we donate to monasteries, to buildings, all kind of donations. (IP4)
The […] people in many areas are quite poor. The government can’t help so much, so we have to take care of each other. (IP2)
However, not all of the respondents equated donations or flood relief with CSR activities – two respondents objected strongly to doing so:
A big amount of money is donated to flood relief. But this is controversial: are we calling this CSR? It is just ‘greenwashing’. (IP4)
To donate [flood] relief is not a project; this just happens. If there is no flood, then maybe it’s a fire. It is difficult for me as a local to understand this as a CSR activity. (IP1)
The results of our interviews with the tour operators in Myanmar confirm Oo’s (2016) findings concerning the influence of Buddhist philosophy on CSR, and they show that Myanmar is the highest-ranking country in the world in term of generosity, especially considering that its citizens could not expect much support from the former military government in cases of personal or national crises such as flooding.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 393 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Community Involvement as Part of CSR
Community involvement is another element of CSR that many of the respondents mentioned. Apparently, community initiatives are the essence of CSR, according to the interviewees, with environmental activities being of minor importance. For example, respondents often mentioned getting involved in community-based tourism (CBT):
I am looking to do CBT. This is my official target and this will also be part of the CSR, because I can do business with the local people, and I can share the profit with them, so they can sustain their living. (IP5)
In addition to making plans to directly involve locals through CBT programmes, the tour operators mentioned the possibility of including them on their tours to allow an intercultural exchange and promote education:
During a culinary tour, they are talking to foreigners, they will know what the foreigners do and they have a chit-chat and the village people will get more education. My target is […] education. (IP8)
Furthermore, a few respondents noted that it is necessary to work with local suppliers and that that they wanted to achieve CSR along the entire value and supply chains:
When we have the comparison between two hotels, let’s say Mr. A and Mr. B, and Mr. A has a good work ethic, pays his staff well, etc., we would rather work with him. (IP1)
The well-being of staff was another aspect of CSR activity mentioned by a few respondents, which conforms to the Western understanding of the concept. A major obstacle to such an opportunity is the lack of sustainable managed hotels or sustainable options for tour operators to work with.
Further barriers to implementing CSR
Besides the above-mentioned insights, the divergent understandings of CSR expressed by the people of Myanmar relate to their education and knowledge and to their mindset when it comes to planning. In general, the majority of respondents were eager to learn more about responsible business and CSR: “I would like to get more knowledge, attend more trainings” (IP9) – which is not surprising, considering the background of many of the professional tour operators we interviewed. Apparently, a number of the interviewees had been trained not in the fields of tourism or business affairs but rather in such unrelated subjects as dentistry or chemistry. (It should be noted that for decades the only academic disciplines available to the citizens of Myanmar were in the hard sciences, such as engineering, medicine, physics, or chemistry; disciplines such as tourism, philosophy and the soft sciences [social, historical and cultural subjects] were not available to them.)
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 394 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Some interviewees gained access to the tourism business through relatives, as explained by one of the respondents:
So now that tourism becomes more present, every businessperson wants to set up a tourism business, but they don’t have any idea about the concept of tourism. They hire some staff, some have certificates, some have experience, but we need to educate them to have a proper concept of what tourism is. (IP5)
Hence, educational training is another important aspect. So far, only short-term vocational training courses (lasting two months or less) have been offered to the employees of tour operators and travel agencies. Myanmar is currently working with the ASEAN office on plans to establish a standardised training programme for these professionals so the issues of CSR and responsible business practices can be integrated into the curricula:
So in the future, if we can provide more information about what CSR is, maybe [those working this field] will be better able to distinguish CSR from donations. (IP5)
Respondents also pointed out that the concepts of time and planning as understood by many of the Myanmar tour operators appeared to be lacking. According to at least two of the interviewees, the long-term thinking necessary for understanding why CSR is important was absent:
People are satisfied with what they have today – that is enough; they don’t worry about tomorrow. (IP7)
This perspective is probably influenced by the Buddhist attitude to time and space, which is different from our Western concept of time: “Very basically, in most schools of Buddhism, [it] is understood that the way we [in the West] experience time – as flowing from past to present to future – is an illusion. Further, it could be said that the liberation of Nirvana is liberation from time and space” (O’Brien, 2014).
Thus, it would be worthwhile to discuss with Buddhist philosophers whether the concept of time in the Buddhist context is controversial or similar to that of Balàš and Strasdas (2015), who regard CSR as a process of development, having no specific points of entry and fulfilment. Some commonality and even synergy between Buddhism and the concept of CSR could be addressed in our efforts to translate CSR into terms that are easier to understand for a Myanmar Buddhist. This suggestion leads us to a review of what we learned from our study and a number of recommendations regarding the future of CSR in Myanmar. Conclusion and recommendations
There is very little literature that focuses specifically on CSR in Myanmar, and the rest addresses CSR in the context of international corporations rather than on locally owned and run organizations, predominantly those in the tourism industry. (An exception is the master’s thesis written by Than Hlaing Oo, 2016.) Therefore, the aim of our research was to determine how the people involved in this industry conceive of CSR and to what extent their
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 395 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
understanding of this concept is evident in their operations.
Contributions to the literature
This study adds several valuable and interesting insights to the academic literature.
First, it shows that the tour operators we interviewed had different explanations for the concept of CSR (e.g. some regarded CSR as a form of donations, while others saw it as a form of community involvement). In addition, there were considerable differences in the extent to which these operators were actually aware of or familiar with the concept of CSR, with some respondents never even having heard of corporate social responsibility before they were interviewed. These findings confirm the claim of Schneider and Schmidtpeter (2012, p. 18) that CSR can be deemed an “unprecise concept”.
Second, when considering the elements that constitute a proper understanding of CSR, as suggested by Balàš and Strasdas (2015) (see earlier section entitled Our Understanding of CSR), it becomes apparent that the tour operators’ understanding of CSR is biased towards the social component of the seven principles proposed by these researchers – that is, the triple bottom line (“people, planet and profit”). Although many of the respondents met the stakeholder orientation criterion, and the value chain orientation has also begun to play a more important role in their activities (e.g. some tour operators prefer to choose sustainable hotels and means of transportation), environmental concerns (as part of the triple bottom line) appear to play a subordinate role when it comes to applying CSR, with only a few of the respondents mentioning the importance of energy efficiency in the office or the need to introduce better waste management practices. The principle of voluntariness can be linked to the Myanmar concept of donating time for CSR activities. Still, a holistic management approach might be difficult to implement in the years ahead. After decades of dictatorship, Myanmar’s managers still prefer the top-down management style, which conflicts with the philosophy of CSR. Moreover, transparency remains a challenge, with Myanmar still ranked 147th (out of 168 countries) in terms of corruption (Transparency International, 2016).
Finally, Myanmar’s political and economic situation of the past six decades played an essential role in explaining what might be considered the backwardness of the country’s in terms of understanding and implementing CSR. Because its economy was closed off and restricted from commercial interactions with the outside world, Myanmar was unaware of the growing recognition, in other parts of the world, that businesses and corporations needed to be more socially responsible. Thus, it was not possible for Myanmar to observe and imitate global trends and developments in order to be internationally competitive. Of note, this setback is in keeping with the suggestion made by Balàš and Strasdas (2015) that CSR is an ongoing process shaped by societal and environmental developments. These circumstances explain not only why Myanmar has lagged behind other countries with respect to CSR, but also why CSR is understood differently there than elsewhere – in Europe, for example. The revelation that CSR in Myanmar is often seen as equivalent to making donations is unequivocally shaped by (1) the influences of the predominantly Buddhist
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 396 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
lifestyle in Myanmar and (2) the urge for its citizens to care for one another, having lived under a regime that failed to do so while the country was under the control of a military dictatorship.
Recommendations
We offer the following recommendations to assist in implementing CSR concepts in the tourism sector of Myanmar.
Consult stakeholders. Häusler (2014) and Häusler and Baumgartner (2014) describe in more detail the intense multistakeholder processes required to formulate Myanmar’s Responsible Tourism Policy (2012) and the Policy on Community Involvement (2013) as a first important step towards encouraging the participation of all those involved in the tourism sector. However, in the early stages, only representatives of the private tourism sector and the government joined in the stakeholder meetings; local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) were not usually invited to join the round-table discussions – in fact, few such organisations existed in Myanmar. Today, in 2016, that situation has changed completely. Not only have a wide-ranging group of newly established NGOs and CSOs been asked to participate in the multistakeholder process and support the reviewing of these official policies, but, in light of the religious perspective discussed in this paper, we also recommend that Buddhist leaders be invited to add their input and thus help define the meaning of CSR and responsible business in tourism in Myanmar.
Understand the local and national context. Myanmar has been struggling with the same issues faced by every other less developed country: corruption, inadequate infrastructure, under-resourced public services and a less well skilled and educated base. Although some CSR approaches that have worked well elsewhere and can be adapted, others may not translate to Myanmar, so “the cookie cutter [approach] should be avoided” (Bowman, 2014). International consultants engaged to facilitate the implementation of CSR and responsible business practices in the tourism sector would benefit from a deep understanding of the complexities of Myanmar’s recent history and from taking into account the impact of decades of ethnic conflicts, human rights abuses, religious diversity and military rule before advising Myanmar colleagues on how to implement the more typically Western concept of CSR.
It is hoped that well-designed CSR initiatives will consider these conclusions and recommendations and thus contribute to the goal of sustainable tourism development in Myanmar.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 397 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Asian Development Bank (2012). Myanmar in transition: Opportunities and challenges. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29942/myanmar-transition.pdf.
Balàš, M., & Strasdas, W. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility und Nachhaltiges Unternehmensmanagement im Tourismus. In H. Rein & W. Strasdas (Eds.), Nachhaltiger Tourismus: Einführung (pp. 231–273). Constance and Munich: UTB.
Bissinger, J. (2012). Foreign investment in Myanmar: A resource boom but a development bust? Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 34, 1–23. doi:10.1355/cs34-1b.
Bowman, V. (2014). Myanmar and CSR: Creating and implementing successful strategy. Yangon: Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business. Retrieved from http://www.myanmar-responsiblebusiness.org/news/myanmar-and-csr-creating- and-implementing-successful-strategy.html.
Charities Aid Foundation (2015). CAF World Giving Index 2015: A global view of giving trends. West Malling: Charities Aid Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.cafamerica.org/wp- content/uploads/1755A_WGI2015_Report_WEB_V2_FINAL.pdf.
Christie, K., & Hanlon, J. (2014). Sustaining human rights and responsibility: The United Nations Global Compact and Myanmar. Athens Journal of Social Science, 1, 9–20.
CSRI Online. (2013). The Initiative defining corporate social responsibility. Cambridge, MA: Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government, Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg/CSRI/init_define.html.
David, R., & Holliday, I. (2012). International sanctions or international justice? Shaping political development in Myanmar. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66, 121–138. doi:10.1080/10357718.2012.658615
DEval (2015). Small and medium enterprise survey Myanmar 2015. Bonn: German Institute for Development Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.deval.org/files/content/Dateien/Evaluierung/Berichte/2015_DEval_SM E%20Report.pdf.
Ei Ei Thu & Kean, T. (2015, Jan 19). Why Myanmar’s tourist numbers don’t add up. Myanmar Times. Retrieved from http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/in-depth/12828-why- myanmar-s-tourist-numbers-don-t-add-up.html.
FloodList (2015). UN Report – Floods in Myanmar had devastating impact on agriculture. Neutrebbin: FloodList. Retrieved from http://floodlist.com/asia/un-myanmar- floods-food-security.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 398 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Fuller, P. (2015, September 4). The act of giving: What makes Myanmar so charitable? Myanmar Times, pp. 12–13.
Grieshuber, E. (2012). CSR als Hebel für ganzheitliche Innovation. In A. Schneider & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility: Verantwortungsvolle Unternehmensführung in Theorie und Praxis (pp. 371–384). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Häusler, N. (2014). Nachhaltiger Tourismus in Myanmar: Erste wichtige Schritte. In U. Köster, P. Le Triong, & C. Grein (Eds.), Handbuch Myanmar: Gesellschaft – Politik – Wirtschaft – Kultur – Entwicklung (pp. 293–303). Berlin: Horlemann.
Häusler, N., & Baumgartner, C. (2014) Myanmar on its way to responsible tourism management: The important role of stakeholder dialogues. In C. Wohlmuther & W. Wintersteiner (Eds.), International Handbook on Tourism and Peace (pp. 181–198). Klagenfurt: Drava.
Häusler, N. (2016). Opportunities and challenges of investment promotion: Sectoral scoping study for the tourism sector in Myanmar. Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – Support to the Initative for ASEAN Integration (IAI), Yangon, March 24, 2016 (unpublished).
Holmes, O. (2015, November 23). Final Myanmar results show Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won 77% of seats. The Guardian, n.p. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/final-myanmar-results-show- aung-san-suu-kyis-party-won-77-of-seats.
Howe, B. M., & Jang, S. (2013). Human security and development: Divergent approaches to Burma/Myanmar. Pacific Focus, 28, 120–143. doi:10.1111/pafo.12001
Human Rights Watch (2010). World Report 2010: Burma. New York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2010/country-chapters/burma.
Kell, G. (2012). 12 years later: Reflections on the growth of the UN Global Compact. Business & Society, 52, 31–52. doi:10.1177/0007650312460466
Ko Ko Thett (2012). Responsible tourism in Myanmar: Current situation and challenges. Prague: Burma Centre Prague. Retrieved from http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs14/Responsible-Tourism-in-Myanmar-Current- Situation-and-Challenges-red.pdf.
Kraas, F., & Häusler, N. (2016). Tourismusentwicklung in Myanmar. Geographische Rundschau, forthcoming.
MCRB, DIHR, & IHRB (2015). Myanmar tourism sector–wide impact assessment. Yangon: Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business (MCRB)/CopeN.H.agen: Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR)/London: Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 399 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/00- myanmar-tourism-sector-wide-assessment.pdf.
MoHT. (2012). Responsible Tourism Policy. Naypyidaw: Ministry of Hotels and Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs14/Myanmar_Responsible- Tourism_Policy-en-red-ocr-tu.pdf.
MoHT. (2013). Policy on Community Involvement in Tourism (CIT). Naypyidaw: Ministry of Hotels and Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.hss.de/fileadmin/suedostasien/myanmar/downloads/130501-Policy- on-Community-Involvement-in-Tourism-Myanmar.pdf.
MoHT (2016). Tourism Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.myanmartourism.org/images/tourism-statistics.
O’Brien, B. (2014). Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel. Retrieved from http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/a/Three-Turnings-Of-The- Dharma-Wheel.htm.
Rein, H., & Strasdas, W. (2015). Nachhaltiger Tourismus: Einführung. Constance and Munich: UTB.
Schneider, A., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.) (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility: Verantwortungsvolle Unternehmensführung in Theorie und Praxis. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Spiro, M. (1982). Buddhism and society: A great tradition and its Burmese vicissitudes (2nd, exp. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Than Hlaing Oo, G. (2016). Adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the tourism sector of developing countries: A comparative study of foreign-owned and local-owned hotels and tour operators in Myanmar (Master’s thesis). Available from http://www.responsiblemyanmar.org/project- updates/csrpracticesinthetourismmyanmar
Transparency International (2016). Corruption by country/territory: Myanmar: Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/country/#MMR.
Welford, R., & Ziegler, M. (2013). Responsible and inclusive business in Myanmar. Hong Kong: CSR Asia. Retrieved from http://www.csr- asia.com/report/CSRA2013_Responsible_and_Inclusive_Business_in_Myanmar.pdf.
Zöllner, H.-B. (2014). Buddhismus in Myanmar: Erlösungsweg, Orthodoxie und Hemmschuh. In U. Köster, P. Le Triong, & C. Grein (Eds.), Handbuch Myanmar: Gesellschaft – Politik – Wirtschaft – Kultur – Entwicklung (pp. 81–87). Berlin: Horlemann.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 400 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Annex 1 – Interview Partners
IP X gender (age), location, joint venture (JV) / locally owned company (LO), position in company
IP 1 male (approx. 60 years), Yangon, JV , managing director
IP 2 female (approx. 40 years), Yangon, LO, owner/managing director
IP 3 male (approx. 60 years), Yangon, LO, owner/managing director
IP 4 male (approx. 50 years), Yangon, JV, owner/managing director
IP 5 male (approx. 35 years), Yangon, JV, owner/managing director
IP 6 male (approx. 55 years), LO, Nyaungshwe, hospitality trainer
IP 7 female (approx. 30 years), LO, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 8 female (approx. 45 years), LO, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 9 female (approx. 35 years), LO, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 10 male (approx. 30 years), LO, Yangon, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 11 female (approx. 70 years), LO, Nyaungshwe, Hotel HR manager
IP 12 male (approx. 40 years), LO, Nyaungshwe, Hotel manager
IP 13 male (approx. 50 years), LO, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 14 female (approx. 35 years), LO, Yangon, owner/managing director
IP 15 male (approx. 30 years), LO, Loikaw, owner/managing director
IP 16 female (26 years), LO, Loikaw, owner/managing director
IP 17 male (25 years), LO, Loikaw, son of owner
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 401 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
United we stand, divided we fall: Strategies for engaging customers in Corporate Responsibility Programs
Karen Hughes* & Gianna Moscardo^
*University of Queensland, Australia, [email protected]
^James Cook University, Australia, [email protected]
Key words: Corporate responsibility, guest/customer compliance, interpretation, social and sustainability marketing
Many tourism corporate responsibility programs require the support and/or compliance of guests or customers, yet little attention has been paid to the design of strategies to encourage this compliance. Research in the areas of tourist interpretation, social marketing and sustainability marketing has all addressed aspects of this issue across a range of situations. A review of this literature is used to generate principles for the design and implementation of effective strategies to support customer compliance with CR programs in tourism businesses. Implementation of these principles is demonstrated through two contrasting holiday scenarios. Suggestions for extending CR strategies beyond the immediate confines and concerns of individual tourism businesses are also presented. Scenario One: The Rossi Family Takes a Holiday
The Rossi family has scoured the internet for weeks, and has finally booked a family room at a Pacific island resort that has its own access to the beach and a kids club. After a long flight, they are delighted to find the hotel bus waiting for them at the airport. Even better, there are no other passengers so the family can spread out. The kids are soon asleep, but Mr. and Mrs. Rossi admire the local scenery and point out people working in the fields. They ask the bus driver about the local economy and way of life but as he hasn’t been there very long, he can’t really answer their questions.
When they arrive at the resort Mrs. Rossi comments on the beautiful fountains and lush gardens - this as an oasis compared to the dusty streets outside and she makes a mental note not to venture outside the resort gates. On the reception counter, the Rossis notice a sign saying the resort supports the local communities by holding nightly performances of traditional dances in the lobby. The receptionist notices their interest and tells them the resort is designed in traditional style and even has a shop that sells local artefacts.
The Rossis sigh in contentment as they settle into their room – the air-conditioning is icy cold and the TV is playing a welcome video about the resort. Mrs. Rossi fills up the spa bath
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 402 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
and notices that Antonella has already taken all the little bottles of toiletries for her collection – never mind, house-keeping will replenish them all tomorrow. She digs in her suitcase for her favorite spa salts and gets in, regularly topping up the water when it goes cool. The kids and Mr. Rossi have a quick shower in the other bathroom, leaving the towels in a soggy heap on the floor like they do at home. Mrs. Rossi asks them to hang them up for re-use but Mr. Rossi scoffs and says it doesn’t matter; the staff will just give them new ones anyway. He tells her to stop fussing – they’re on holiday!
The Rossis are thrilled to find that dinner is a seafood buffet. Mr. Rossi piles his plate high – this stuff costs a fortune at home so he’s going to get his money’s worth! Mrs. Rossi looks at his plate and sighs – she knows he’ll never manage to eat it all. She wonders what the local people eat apart from seafood, how they catch it and whether there are any local legends about sea creatures. She’d ask the staff but the only one who seems to be a local resident is the gardener, and he was always busy mowing the grass and hosing down the paths.
The story of the Rossi family is a fictional one meant to highlight typical activities and decisions made by many tourists whilst on holiday. It includes a number of issues that many tourism businesses seek to address when developing and implementing corporate responsibility (CR) programs and strategies. While these scenarios use a resort setting, the guiding principles are broad enough to apply to a range of tourism businesses including accommodation, food and beverage, transport operators and commercial attractions such as theme parks.
Introduction
The contribution of human actions to rising sea levels, loss of biodiversity and destruction of natural habitats is well documented by scientists and popular media. Impacts on cultural traditions, community lifestyles and social wellbeing have also been highlighted. It seems logical to presume that the resultant widespread public awareness of these issues would lead people to adopt environmentally and socially responsible behaviors, yet research across a range of areas shows this is often not the case. This phenomenon is variously called the awareness-behavior, attitude-behavior or intention-behavior gap (Moraes, Carrigan & Szmigin, 2012) and has been described in the areas of health (Hansen, Skov & Skov, 2016); sustainability action in general (Steg & Vlek, 2009); and ethical or responsible consumption in general (Carrington, Neville & Whitwell, 2014; Moraes et al., 2012; Moscardo, 2013). In a tourism context this same gap has been identified in general tourism (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014), in transport decisions (Antimova, Nawijn & Peeters, 2012; Mair, 2011; Gossling, Scott, Hall, Ceron & Dubois, 2012); in accommodation (Rahman, Park & Chi, 2015); and in ecotourism (Ballantyne & Packer, 2011; Hughes, 2013). While common, it is important to note that this awareness/intention–action is not universal - studies do report a proportion of people whose actions are consistent with their stated values, attitudes and intentions (cf. Baker, Weaver & Davis, 2014; Chen, 2015; Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Radwan, Jones & Minoli, 2012). There is, however, a clear need to develop effective management strategies that go beyond simply informing tourists of CR programs to encourage and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 403 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
support higher levels of tourist engagement with CR programs.
A steadily increasing number of tourism businesses are implementing policies to reduce energy and water consumption; decrease their reliance on non-durable goods; and limit emissions that negatively impact on air, water and soil quality (Han, Hsu & Lee, 2009). Common practices include installation of energy-efficient lighting and equipment; keycards to operate lights and air conditioning; water efficient fittings; towel reuse programs; waste sorting; and using sustainable sources of energy (Bohdanowicz, Zientara & Novotna, 2011; Bruns-Smith, Choy, Chong & Verma, 2015). In addition to environmental responsibility, many businesses also consider their social and cultural responsibilities, developing CR programs around staff employment and support programs, use of local goods and services, and support for local or other community initiatives and causes (Bruns-Smith et al., 2015; Kucukusta, Mak & Chen, 2013). Implementation of these initiatives and campaigns is often accompanied by programs that engage, train and manage staff (Bohdanowicz et al., 2011).
Guests and customers, however, are rarely directly targeted in the design and development of CR programs (Baker et al., 2014; Coles, Fenclova & Dinan, 2013; Kucukusta et al, 2013). This is problematic, as customer compliance is likely to play an important role in determining the success of CR programs. As noted at Cornell’s Roundtable on Sustainability, education of both employees and customers is central to the successful implementation of ‘green’ programs (Cornell University, 2010). The reluctance to directly engage with tourists in CR processes results from several pressures. Firstly, many businesses focus on ensuring that the programs fit into the larger business system, especially with staff and suppliers (Esty & Winston, 2009; Wood, 2010). Secondly, there may be a tendency for tourism managers to see communication with tourists as part of the traditional marketing function and thus not part of CR. Thirdly, and arguably the most commonly reported factor, is a concern that tourists might see the quality of their experiences and services as being compromised by CR activities (Kang, Stein, Heo & Lee, 2012; Levy & Park, 2011; Radwan et al., 2012).
There is evidence that many customers are skeptical of claims made by businesses about their CR programs (Baker et al., 2014; Cha, Yi & Bagozzi, 2015; Elving, 2013; Jeong, Jang, Day & Ha, 2014; Rahman et al., 2015). This can lead to claims of greenwashing, making businesses reluctant to discuss their activities too publicly in case they are criticized for what they do not do (de Jong & van der Meer, 2015). Esty and Winston refer to this as the problem of “perfect being the enemy of good” (2009, p. 250). There is also some evidence that consumers do not associate environmentally responsible options with luxury (Moscardo & Benckendorff, 2010). A recent study by Miao and Wei (2013), for example, found that in hotel settings, hedonic motives (those related to receiving direct pleasure, excitement and comfort) were the strongest predictor of environmental behavior. Guests were unlikely to engage in behaviors that were perceived to require effort, take time, or detract from their comfort and enjoyment. Studies also show that tourists deliberately seek relief from a variety of responsibilities while on holiday and so may want to avoid CR programs altogether (Barr & Prillwitz, 2012; Cohen, Higham & Reis, 2013).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 404 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
On the flip-side, there are reports that consumers can hold positive attitudes towards CR programs (Bruns-Smith et al., 2015; Chen, 2015; Jeong et al, 2014; Prud’homme & Raymond, 2013) and that CR programs can contribute to guest satisfaction (Cha et al., 2015; Blose, Mack & Pitts, 2015). Some studies also report that guests do not see CR action as onerous or detracting from their holiday experience (Radwan et al., 2012; Chen, 2015; Han, Hsu, Lee & Sheu, 2011). It is clear from these conflicting findings that guest compliance is a complex issue, one that is likely to be context specific and influenced by situational factors such as information, support, and access to facilities that enable the required action. For tourism managers the question is: what specific information and support is needed to encourage guests and customers to adopt actions that comply with their CR initiatives?
This question is not unique to tourism - considerable research and evidence has already been collected in other areas. A recurring criticism of tourism research and practice is the tendency for researchers and managers in tourism to ignore ideas, information and strategies from other disciplines (Bramwell & Lane, 2012; Moscardo, 2014a). This tourism- centrism means that tourism practice often lags behind other sectors (Moscardo, 2015a) and that there is unnecessary reinvention of research and explanation. The aim of this paper is to review what is already known about consumer CR compliance and effective customer communication and use this to develop a set of guidelines, recommendations or principles for the design of more effective CR customer compliance support programs in tourism. This latter objective is both consistent with the goals of BEST EN and suggestions for improving management practice in CR (Jameson & Brownell, 2012; McDonald, 2014). Developing Principles from Research and Theory to Support Sustainability Action
Research into responsible and ethical consumer behavior has been conducted across a wide range of areas including public education around pro-social and pro-environmental actions (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005), now sometimes referred to as social marketing (Lefebvre, 2013); cause related marketing (Adkins, 2003); ethical consumption (Newholm & Shaw, 2007); the emerging area of sustainability marketing (Belz & Peattie, 2009); and, within tourism, the area of interpretation (Moscardo & Ballantyne, 2008). The present paper examined major reviews and books, and relevant research studies published in the last five years to identify consistent themes about the factors that contribute to effective customer engagement in CR programs. Three areas were found to be particularly useful and complementary – interpretation research, social marketing and sustainability marketing.
Research into tourist interpretation has been predominantly conducted in the less commercial areas of tourism including protected natural environments such as national parks, cultural heritage settings such as historic precincts and museums (Moscardo, 2015b). In these settings information and informal education about environmental and socio- cultural issues is often expected and sought by tourists (Falk, Ballantyne, Packer & Benckendorff, 2012). Given that visitors to these sites are usually seeking a positive leisure experience, there is a general consensus that persuasion is a better option for tourist management than coercion (Mason, 2005). Research in this area provides valuable insights
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 405 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
into attracting visitors’ attention, increasing awareness and understanding of sustainability issues, and encouraging visitors to change the way they think about their actions (Hughes, 2013; Hughes, Packer & Ballantyne, 2011; Powell & Ham, 2008 ). There has, however, been criticism that this research tends to focus on behavioral intentions rather than actual behavior, that it ignores barriers between intention and action, and that it assumes it is possible and desirable to make people pay focused attention to all their actions in tourist setting (see Moscardo, 2014b and Hughes et al., 2011 for reviews).
Research in social marketing and public education around various pro-environmental, public health and pro-social behaviors takes a wider view than interpretation research and has focused more on the barriers between intention to engage in desired behavior and actually doing so (Glasman, 2006; Leiserowitz, Kates & Parris, 2006; Peattie, 2010; Steg & Vlek, 2009). While this area offers valuable insights into bridging the gap between intention and action, it is usually conducted in situations where governments have considerable control over the setting and conditions, as well as the power to coerce people into action using fines and penalties. Such options are not usually appropriate for tourism settings where the tourists or guests are a) at leisure and not likely to respond positively to coercion and b) have the ability to choose another service provider or destination that does not apply penalties or restrictions. The emerging area of sustainability marketing recognizes the commercial and competitive dimensions of customer management that are not typically considered in the areas of interpretation or social marketing. Taken together these three areas can be used to develop principles to guide the design and implementation of effective tourist CR compliance strategies.
There is considerable agreement across the range of research areas about the elements required in any strategy linked to sustainable or responsible action. The relevant research and theory can be summarized into six main steps necessary to support tourist, guest or customer engagement with CR initiatives (see Figure 1). These steps are also consistent with the main components of the most commonly used theories in social marketing and interpretation: the Theory of Planned Behavior, Norm Activation Theory and Value-Belief- Norm Theory (Lulfs & Hahn, 2014). The factors listed in Figure 1 also include variables identified in studies of responsible tourist behavior (Antimova et al., 2012; Barr, Gilg & Shaw, 2011; Blose et al., 2015; Han et al., 2011; Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014; Mair, 2011; Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes & Tribe, 2010; Rahman et al., 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 406 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
•Organsation knows their audience •Audience's attention is focussed on the issue ATTENTION
•Audience knows about the issue •Audience understands the issue AWARENESS
•Audience believes the claims/trusts the source •Audience sees the issue as personally relevant and important •Audience perceives the action will make a difference ACCEPTANCE •Audience thinks the action is socially acceptable
•Audience intends to change or adopt the required behaviors to address the issue INTENTION •Audience has a specific plan to adopt the behaviors TO ACT
•Audience knows how to perform the behavior •Audience has the physical capacity to perform the behavior •Audience has the resources required ABILITY •Audience finds it easy to do
•Audience is aware at the appropriate time and remembers to do it (change routines and habits) •Organisation provides incentives ACTION •Audience engages reliably and effectively in the desired/required behaviors
Figure 1: Main Steps to Support Sustainability Action
(based on James, 2010; Moscardo, 2013 and Steg and Vlek, 2009)
Using research findings and guided by the steps outlined in Figure 1, a set of principles to support tourist compliance with CR programs is presented in Table 1. These principles are discussed in more detail in the following sections before being incorporated into a second version of the Rossi family holiday scenario.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 407 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Table 1: Principles for Effective Tourist Compliance Strategies
Foundations
1. Create consistency across the whole business
2. Use appropriate themes to connect elements
3. Understand and connect to customers
Attention, Awareness and Acceptance
4. Attract and engage customers
5. Carefully structure CR communication
Ability and Action
6. Consider customer capabilities and limitations
7. Design smart systems that support convenience
8. Provide prompts at critical points
9. Develop and use feedback systems
10. Offer appropriate incentives and rewards
Create consistency across the whole business
An ongoing challenge for improving the sustainability of businesses is the integration of sustainability principles and ideas of corporate responsibility across the entire business structure and culture (Baumgartner, 2014; Esty & Winston, 2009). Many businesses begin shifting towards greater corporate responsibility by developing sustainability and/or corporate responsibility as a separate function or department, rather than as an element or goal to be embedded across all aspects of the business. This makes it difficult to have consistency in action and messages (Benn, Dunphy & Griffiths, 2014). Inconsistent actions across a business can prompt customers to be skeptical about the extent to which the business is serious about its responsibilities. This has been found to be a major barrier to customer willingness to support CR programs (Baker et al., 2014; Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010). To illustrate, resort guests will be less likely to comply with requests to limit their personal water use and use recycling systems for waste if they see that the business has inefficient garden watering systems and staff are not separating waste for recycling.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 408 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Customers need to observe and believe that the whole business is committed to CR programs if they are to develop the trust necessary to alter their own actions (James, 2010). Seeing staff engaging in CR programs also provides modelling of the desired behaviors (Antimova et al., 2012; James, 2010) which acts as both source of social support for customer action and a reminder to customers that the CR programs exist (Lulfs & Hahn, 2014).
Use appropriate themes to connect elements
The idea of having consistency across all elements of a business can also be extended to the idea of consistency between the business and the focus of its CR efforts. The concept of fit from cause-related marketing is an important one here (de Jong & van der Meer, 2015). Fit can be defined as the relevance and clarity of the relationship between the elements of the business and focus of its CR programs (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006: Cha et al., 2015). CR programs need to be about issues and actions that are linked to each other across all aspects of the business. It is important that these links are logical because research suggests that the closer and clearer the fit, the more likely customers are to support the CR programs (de Jong & van der Meer, 2015; Elving, 2013). Furthermore, CR programs that focus on local issues (Blose et al., 2015), address immediate or current problems (Russell & Russell, 2010), and demonstrate a proactive rather than reactive stance (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) are more likely to be supported by customers. It would be difficult, for example, for an ultra-modern inner city North American hotel with marble floors and polished concrete walls to generate support for a rainforest orangutan conservation project in Indonesia because there are no obvious connections between the hotel’s design, its raison d'être and the cause it supports.
The idea of fit is similar to the concept of themes in tourist interpretation. Themes allows customers to link the different elements together. Effective themes are specific, stimulate interest and enable customers to make connections between the issue and the desired response. Basically, themes provide the “big picture” by helping consumers understand and connect the different elements (Ham, 2013). As an example, CR programs supporting the education of females in a community to enhance their employment prospects might provide customers with the opportunity to donate goods such as paper, pens and books; participate in activities at the local school; assist with childcare for younger siblings; provide donations for girls’ uniforms; buy a bicycle for the teacher; give unwanted books and other resources to the school library; and/or supply groceries for school lunches. These actions all logically fit the theme, encouraging customers to be supportive. Understand and connect to customers
Research consistently shows that individuals assimilate new information by relating it to something they already know (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Customers bring with them a wealth of pre-existing knowledge, experiences, expectations and preferences that CR programs need to take into account – what do customers already know, what are they expecting, what are they interested in or what do they care about, and how can we influence them to
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 409 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
change their behavior? A core process in social marketing is to identify and profile market segments before developing communication campaigns (Steg & Vlek, 2009). This information is fundamental to building personal connections and designing messages and campaigns that have meaning and personal value to customers (Ham, 2013; James, 2010). If a business has many different types of customers, Jameson and Brownell (2010) suggest the use of multiple techniques and different media to allow for a variety of connections with different people.
To illustrate, if your business is supporting the Bayaka tribe in Central African Republic and your customers don’t know anything about African tribes, the environmental threats facing these communities, and/or the erosion of tribal culture due to logging and conservation programs, they are unlikely to be moved by a simple request to make a donation. To be effective, your CR program would need to incorporate techniques to emotionally and cognitively connect customers with the issue or cause your business is supporting. This could include providing customers with examples of customs and traditions that are being eroded; telling stories about the Bayaka tribe – family structure, diet, lifestyle – through the eyes of particular characters in the tribe; providing opportunities for customers to ask questions; and designing activities and discussion points that encourage them to reflect on their own views, opinions and personal experiences. Attract and engage customers
Because humans as a species instinctively pay attention to differences and changes in their environment, using questions, surprise, intriguing visual images and emotion can all help to attract customer attention (James, 2010). Similarly, people tend to mentally “switch off” in tourist and holiday settings that have repetitious signs, exhibits and/or information. This is worrying because if customers are not paying attention, it is impossible to effectively communicate with them. It seems logical to assume that programs that incorporate different media, messages and/or actions that are novel or interesting are more likely to capture attention than run-of-the-mill programs. Multi-sensory experiences (smell, taste, touch, listen) are also particularly effective in this regard.
Organisations need to be creative and design engaging programs that customers want to support. For example, if your business is supporting native honey bees, you might plant flower beds in your driveway, run nature photography competitions and treasure hunts based on flowers, offer sustainable gardening demonstrations and events, run colouring–in competitions, install rooftop hives that supply your onsite restaurant, offer cooking lessons using local honey, and have a chart showing how much honey the onsite hives produced per month. These multi-sensory activities support the CR program by providing added value and an element of fun that is likely to spark interest and engagement.
Stories are another effective way to engage with customers and guests (Moscardo, 2010; Jameson & Brownell, 2012). Stories are universally accepted learning mediums that enable organisations to describe the issue being addressed, why it matters, and the positive outcomes of particular actions. Research shows that stories combined with promotion of
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 410 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
the organisations’ CR programs through websites, signs and brochures is likely to be more effective in attracting guests’ attention, interest and support than lists of facts or scientific descriptions (James, 2010). Organisations can also encourage guests to upload stories about their participation to social media networks, creating a resource that can be used to further extend awareness and support (Jameson & Brownell, 2012).
Carefully structure CR communication
Research in sustainable tourism (cf., Miller et al., 2010) and social marketing (cf. Belz & Peattie, 2009; Lulfs & Hahns, 2014) indicates that while tourists and consumers may be very aware of various environmental and social issues, they may be confused about the contributing factors and how to address these issues. Messages and communication about CR programs need to be organised in a way that is easy to access and follow. This should include information about the issue, its severity, and contributing factors (Baker et al., 2013). Research also highlights the importance of emphasizing the personal responsibility of consumers and the difference their actions will make (Antimova at al., 2012; Baker et al., 2013). Guests are unlikely to donate to a cause or participate in environmental/social initiatives and programs unless they have received some information about the issues in question, the reasons for the initiative, and the expected local and/or ‘big picture’ impact of their participation. For example, guests may be willing to support a hotel CR program in principle, but not believe that actions such as turning off their air-conditioning or having shorter showers will have any impact (Lee & Moscardo, 2004). Without specific explanation, they may struggle to see the link between their individual behavior and broader conservation goals and may consequently choose not to participate (Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes & Dierking, 2007).
The framing of instructions is also important. Available evidence supports using positive messages that highlight both the benefits for others if the customer participates and personal losses if they don’t. Incorporating information that suggests the action is socially desirable is also effective (Blose et al., 2015; James, 2010). Examples include “join 75% of our guests” and “don’t miss this opportunity to help.” Any stories and information about the ‘who, what and why’ of CR programs should also be accompanied by clear instructions about the specific behavioral responses required from customers.
Consider Customer Capabilities and Limitations
Figure 1 illustrates that ability precedes action. A number of factors can intervene between a person’s intention to act and their actual behavior (Moscardo, 2013). Several of these are related to a persons’ capacity to take the desired action; namely, the skills and abilities required to successfully complete the activity; access to resources such as time and money; and confidence in one’s capacity and ability to be effective (Steg & Vleg, 2009). A CR initiative must match the capabilities of the target audience if it is to be effective.
As an example, an urban hotel may hope to reduce their carbon footprint by offering guests the use of bicycles for local travel during their stay or discounts for using local public
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 411 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
transport. Guests who have not ridden a bicycle in many years and/or have little experience of using public transport in a large and unfamiliar city may not have the skills or confidence to take up these options. It’s not that they don’t wish to support the initiative – they simply do not have the required skills or confidence. Offering a range of options aimed at targeting different skills and abilities is one way to overcome this problem. In this example, it may be possible to offer guests a choice of bicycle, public transport or contributing to a carbon offset scheme. Design systems that support convenience
According to Steg and Vleg (2009) it is important to support informational strategies with what they call structural strategies that help make the desired activity both convenient and easy to do without paying much attention. A recent major shift in focus in the areas of persuasive communication, social marketing and behavior change is the recognition of the importance of habit and attention (Baker et al., 2013; James, 2010; Steg & Vleg, 2009). This shift is based on the idea of dual processing (Kurz, Gardenr, Verplanken & Abraham, 2015). Psychologists often distinguish between two types of thinking and behavior:
- one which is routine, habitual and pre-conscious in its nature. This type is guided by heuristics, requires little attention or focus, and is based on minimal processing of the specific environment. It is variously referred to as shallow, peripheral, heuristic or mindless; and
- one which is deliberate, consciously controlled, based on systematic attention to, and processing of, information available in the specific environment. This type is variously referred to as deep, central, systematic or mindful (Kurz et al., 2015).
This distinction is important as actions that are routine or habitual are guided by very different cues and cognitive processes than actions that are deliberate and consciously controlled. The two types also require different management strategies (Hansen, Skov & Skov, 2016; Moraes, Carrigan & Szmigin, 2012).
Programs targeting habitual behavior require careful consideration of the extent to which systems and facilities make it easy for guests to comply. New technologies such as smart sensors that automatically switch lights, heating and cooling on and off depending on the presence of guests will increase energy efficiency and remove the need for customer compliance. These technologies are not necessarily available or appropriate for every business situation; however, so it is important not to rely solely upon technology to solve CR compliance problems. Changes to other systems and processes to support customer convenience can also be considered. For example, simply providing smaller plates at a restaurant buffet may be sufficient to reduce food wastage without customers perceiving any change to their experience and without them having to make conscious decisions to change their behavior (Steg & Vleg, 2009).
For tourism CR programs that rely on the active participation of guests, a different approach may be required. A consistent finding from research in sustainability marketing is that
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 412 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
customer convenience is critical in gaining support for more environmentally and socially responsible products and services (Belz & Peattie, 2010). If we are designing for convenience, participation should be the easiest or most convenient option – it’s probably best to have a system that requires customers to actively opt out rather than opt in. For example, it is common to see signs in hotels telling guests that leaving towels on the bathroom floor signals they need washing while hanging them up signals the guest is happy to re-use them. This approach assumes that people are paying attention to both the signs and their own behavior. This may not be the case. An alternative is to tell guests that all towels, regardless of where they are left, will be hung up by cleaning staff for re-use and that they will be replaced every third day unless guests actively inform staff otherwise. Provided there are appropriate guidelines for cleaning staff to change obviously dirty towels, clear options for guests to opt out of the program, information explaining the system and its benefits for guests with concerns, it is likely that many will comply with little thought or concern (Hansen et al., 2016). Provide prompts at critical points
Linked to the point above, sometimes customers may not be paying attention to the target behavior because it is habitual, part of an easily established routine or because they are distracted by the need to pay attention to other matters (Han et al., 2011). There is evidence that people who would normally engage in environmentally responsible behaviors at home do not necessarily engage in those behaviors while travelling (cf. Barr & Prillwitz, 2012). Some researchers have suggested that this reflects guests’ desire to escape everyday routines and engage in indulgent activities (cf. Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). While this may be true for some, it is also possible that the responsible behaviors at home are habits that are prompted by cues in that environment; shifting to a tourist environment removes these cues. This combined with distractions such as having to navigate unfamiliar locations and making decisions about travel activities and plans might mean that everyday habits are not activated.
A solution to this problem is to use prompts to remind people and cue the desired behaviors (James, 2010; Lulfs & Hahn, 2014; Mair & Bergin-Seers, 2010). Effective prompts occur close in both time and place to the point where the behavior is required and offer clear, simple structure and positive frames of reference (Kurz et al., 2015). Prompts typically take the form of small signs placed close to critical points such as on bathroom sinks for turning off taps and near doors for turning off lights and heating/cooling when leaving the room (Bruns-Smith et al., 2015). Research into the effectiveness of safety warning signs (cf. Wogalter, 2006) and interpretive signs (cf. Moscardo, Ballantyne & Hughes, 2007) provides details on formatting and design principles for these types of prompts. Alternatives to signs could include the use of mobile apps linked to smart sensors that alert customers at critical times or places to remind them of the desired actions (Negrusa, Toader, Sofica, Tutunea & Rus, 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 413 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Develop and use feedback systems
Prompts for CR behaviors can also be linked to monitoring and feedback systems. People find it much easier to adjust behaviors when they can directly link their action to outcomes (James, 2010). The use of systems that allow guests or customers to monitor their own performance in areas related to CR programs, such as energy usage, is a way to both remind guests to pay attention to their behavior and to encourage desirable actions. Monitoring systems that allow customers to track their own individual performance are likely to be the most effective option as there is a clear and immediate personal link (Negrusa et al., 2015). Where such systems are not appropriate, the use of monitors that provide information on the performance of the business or its customers as a group may still be useful in encouraging guests to pay attention to the relevant CR actions (Moscardo, 2013).
Offer appropriate incentives and rewards
Positive feedback on water and energy use or level of support provided for social causes can also act as a type of incentive. Incentives are rewards for engaging in desirable behaviors and are very effective in encouraging sustainability and responsible actions (Blose et al., 2015). Incentives can be financial (such as discounts and refunds) or gifts such as free services or small tokens. Evidence suggests that direct financial incentives are less effective than gifts and tokens (Rudez, 2010). To be effective, incentives need to be offered relatively soon after the desired action is performed, available at various levels, and generally small in value (Blose et al., 2015). Extending CR Programs beyond the Immediate Confines of the Business
The principles and examples provided above are focussed on guest compliance with CR programs that operate while the customer is within the business and its immediate surrounds. It is also possible to consider extensions of CR programs both before and after any individual trip or visit. In terms of pre-visit options, communications with customers could highlight actions that they can take before arriving to support the businesses’ CR programs, such as selection of transport. Organisations could also provide information about their on-site CR programs, as studies show guests are already making ‘green’ choices. For example, Han, Hsu, Lee and Sheu (2011) claim that consumers are increasingly choosing to stay at eco-friendly hotels over others, while Manaktola and Jauhari (2007) predict preferences for green hotels are likely to increase. Similarly, guests with favourable attitudes towards performing eco-friendly activities in their everyday lives and positive images of ‘green’ hotels are more willing to stay at green hotels and recommend them to others (Han et al., 2009). By providing information on their CR programs, organisations could make themselves more attractive and competitive.
While some attention has been paid to these pre-visit options, very little consideration has been given to what guests do once they leave the site or business. Developing ‘best practice’ strategies for on-site compliance is critical, but it is also timely to contemplate how businesses can support their guests’ behavior into the future. If Corporate Responsibility
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 414 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
programs are to have significant impacts, they also need to encourage people to make positive behavioral changes in their home and work environments.
Principles and guidelines for prompting the long-term adoption of CR behaviors have yet to be developed, but longitudinal studies in ecotourism settings suggest that post-visit support in the form of educational materials, online resources and regular reminders (emails, social media stories, site updates) all help to support long-term environmental behavior change (Ballantyne & Packer, 2011; Hughes, 2011). Providing prompts and opportunities for individuals to reflect upon their experiences and to assimilate new information and actions into their everyday routines is also important (Ballantyne, Packer & Sutherland, 2011). It seems likely that CR programs with a social component would also benefit from these strategies.
Scenario Two: The Rossi Family Takes a More Responsible Holiday
The Rossi family has scoured the internet for weeks, and has finally booked a family room at a Pacific island resort that promotes its CR credentials and has been positively reviewed by a number of ecotourism travel websites. After a long flight, they are delighted to find a local taxi driver waiting for them at the airport. The kids are soon asleep, but Mr. and Mrs. Rossi admire the local scenery and point out people working in the fields. The taxi driver has lived on the island all his life and happily tells them stories about the local villagers and their way of life.
When they arrive at the resort Mrs. Rossi comments on the native gardens – she’s seen these plants growing wild on the roadside and is surprised to see they can be incorporated into garden beds. She makes a mental note to wander round the nearby suburbs to look at people’s gardens. On the reception counter, the Rossis notice a sign saying the resort supports the local communities by providing a bus with a local guide who runs tours to the nearby villages. These tours offer opportunities to meet the locals, learn about their traditions, and choose from a range of activities including craft workshops, fishing tours, cooking classes and visits to the school. The resort also collects donations of money and goods on the villagers’ behalf. The Rossis are impressed – they have already spoken to several local employees in reception and the dining room who seem very happy to share stories about their island home.
The Rossis sigh in contentment as they settle into their room – the fans are whirring and the sea breeze wafts through their room. They were skeptical about this option – whenever they go somewhere hot they usually have the air-conditioning on the coldest setting 24/7 to cope. But surprisingly, the breeze is quite cool and refreshing. A quick phone call to reception could get their air-conditioning turned on to their preferred setting but they doubt they’ll need it. Mr. Rossi sees on the in-room sensor that the level of their energy usage has barely moved. He reminds them of the hotel’s energy saving initiative – maybe if they don’t use the air-conditioning, they’ll save enough electricity to get the promised discount off their bill!
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 415 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Time to get ready for dinner! Mrs. Rossi notices the spa bath with the little sign next to it informing them of the hotel’s pledge to limit their use of the local villages’ water supply. She loves spa baths but has been impressed by the hotel’s commitment to the local communities. She has a quick shower instead, using the locally produced toiletries in the large glass dispensers on the bench. The kids and Mr. Rossi have a quick shower in the other bathroom. They are tempted to leave the towels in a soggy heap on the floor like they do at home, but notice the sign about the local water supply and hang them up for reuse instead. The hotel seems to have a strong commitment to the local people – it would be a shame not to support this.
The Rossis are thrilled to find that dinner is a seafood buffet. Next to the buffet is a stack of small dinner plates and a sign reminding guests that multiple trips are possible so they need only take as much as they’ll eat. The Rossis love seafood and are entranced when the chef comes to their table to tell them how it was prepared in the traditional way. Mrs. Rossi smiles - she’s feeling right at home here. Perhaps tomorrow they’ll book a tour to one of the local villages that the hotel sponsors – Mr. Rossi can go on a fishing tour while she and the kids can visit the school and learn some craft. Marco is keen to meet someone his own age and Antonella’s heard from one of the hotel staff that the school even has a Facebook page – this would be a perfect opportunity to make some local friends and keep in touch after their holiday! Conclusions
In 2013, the UN World Tourism Day forum coined the phrase ‘one billion tourists – one billion opportunities’ to highlight the industry’s potential to influence the environmental behavior of tourists worldwide. The cornerstone of this claim is that because of its size and reach, tourism can make a real contribution to preserving the world’s natural and cultural resources (UNWTO, 2013). If, however, tourism businesses are to fully capitalize on these opportunities, they will need to develop customer-centric programs that encourage and support the on-site adoption of environmentally and socially responsible behaviors. The set of evidence-based principles discussed in this paper provides some initial guidance for businesses wishing to adopt a holistic approach to designing, developing and implementing Corporate Responsibility initiatives. This is consistent with the main themes identified for future CR research, namely, the need to describe the extent and nature of CR adoption within businesses, to explore internal barriers to CR adoption and to argue the case for more CR in tourism (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Coles et al., 2013; Garay & Font, 2012). While still relatively new, it is envisaged that with time, Corporate Responsibility programs that focus on both employees and guests will be de rigueur in tourism businesses.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 416 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Adkins, S. (2003). Cause related marketing: Who cares wins. In M.J. Baker (Ed.), The marketing book 5th edn (pp. 669-693). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Antimova, R., Nawijn, J., & Peeters, P. (2012). The awareness/attitude-gap in sustainable tourism: A theoretical perspective. Tourism Review, 67(3), 7-16.
Baker, M. A., Davis, E. A., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 89-99.
Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (2011). Using tourism free-choice learning experiences to promote environmentally sustainable behavior: The role of post-visit 'action resources'. Environmental Education Research, 17(2), 201-215.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. & Sutherland, L. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences, Tourism Management, 32, 770-779.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367 – 383.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). ‘Helping People Make Better Choices’: Exploring the behavior change agenda for environmental sustainability. Applied Geography, 31(2), 712-720.
Barr, S., & Prillwitz, J. (2012). Green travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Applied Geography, 32(2), 798-809.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 21(5), 258-271.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46- 53.
Belz, F., & Peattie, K. (2009). Sustainability marketing. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Benn, S., Dexter, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
Blose, J. E., Mack, R. W., & Pitts, R. E. (2015). The influence of message framing on hotel guests’ linen-reuse intentions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56(2), 145-154.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 417 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Bohdanowicz, P., Zientara, P., & Novotna, E. (2011). International hotel chains and environmental protection: An analysis of Hilton’s we care! Programme (Europe, 2006-2008). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 797-816.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2012). Towards innovation in sustainable tourism research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 1-7.
Bruns-Smith, A., Choy, V., Chong H., & Verma, R. (2015). Environmental sustainability in the hospitality industry: Best practices, Guest participation, and customer satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Report, 15(3), 6-16.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759-2767.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Cha, M. K., Yi, Y., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Effects of customer participation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs on the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, doi: 10.1177/1938965515620679.
Chen, R. J. (2015). From sustainability to customer loyalty: A case of full service hotels’ guests. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 261-265.
Cohen, S. A., Higham, J. E., & Reis, A. C. (2013). Sociological barriers to developing sustainable discretionary air travel behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 982-998.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E., & Dinan, C. (2013). Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 122- 141.
Cornell University (2010). The hotel industry seeks the elusive “green bullet”. Proceedings of the Cornell Hospitality Roundtable, 2(1), February 2010. Retrieved November 25 2013 from http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/chr/pubs/roundtableproceedings/ro undtable-15212.html .
de Jong, M. D., & van der Meer, M. (2015). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2782-2.
Elving, W. J. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277- 292.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 418 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Esty, D.C. & Winston, A.S. (2009). Green to gold, 2nd edn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Falk, J. H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Benckendorff, P. (2012). Travel and learning: A neglected tourism research area. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 908-927.
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Garay, L., & Font, X. (2012). Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 329-337.
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro‐ environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
Glasman, L.R. (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior; A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior link. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778-822.
Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V. and Cialdini, R.B. (2007). Invoking social norms: a social psychology perspective on improving hotels’ linen-reuse programs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48, 145-150.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J. P., & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behavior and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 36-58.
Ham, S. H. (2013). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing.
Han, H., Hsu, L. & Lee, J. (2009). Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes towards green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 519- 528.
Han, H., Hsu, l.J., Lee, J., & Sheu, C. (2011). Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics and eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 345-355.
Hansen, P. G., Skov, L. R., & Skov, K. L. (2016). Making Healthy Choices Easier: Regulation versus Nudging. Annual Review of Public Health, DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth- 032315-021537.
Hughes, K. (2011). Designing post-visit action resources for families visiting wildlife tourism sites. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 66 – 83
Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behavior? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 419 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
21(1), 42-59.
Hughes, K., Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post‐visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 307-328.
James, R. (2010). Promoting sustainable behavior: A guide to successful communication. Retrieved February 25 2016 from http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Promoting_Sustain_Behavior_ Primer.pdf
Jameson, D., & Brownell, J. (2012). Telling your hotel’s “green” story: Developing an effective communication strategy to convey environmental values. Cornell Hospitality Tools, 3(2), 6-17.
Jeong, E., Jang, S. S., Day, J., & Ha, S. (2014). The impact of eco-friendly practices on green image and customer attitudes: An investigation in a café setting. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 10-20.
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude–behavior gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76-95.
Kang, K. H., Stein, L., Heo, C. Y., & Lee, S. (2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 564-572.
Kucukusta, D., Mak, A., & Chan, X. (2013). Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-star hotels: Perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 19-30.
Kurz, T., Gardner, B., Verplanken, B., & Abraham, C. (2015). Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate‐relevant actions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 113-128.
Lacey, R., & Kennett-Hensel, P. A. (2010). Longitudinal effects of corporate social responsibility on customer relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 581-597.
Lee, W. H., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 546-565.
Lefebvre, R. C. (2013). Social marketing and social change: Strategies and tools for improving health, well-being, and the environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Leiserowitz, A. A., Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review Environmental Resources, 31, 413-444.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 420 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Levy, S. E., & Park, S. Y. (2011). An analysis of CSR activities in the lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism management, 18(1), 147-154.
Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization & Environment, 27(1), 43-64.
Mair, J. (2011). Exploring air travellers’ voluntary carbon-offsetting behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 215-230.
Mair, J., & Bergin-Seers, S. (2010). The effect of interventions on the environmental behavior of Australian motel guests. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(4), 255- 268.
Manaktola, K., & Jauhari, V. (2007). Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(5), 364-377.
Mason, P. (2005). Visitor management in protected areas: From ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ approaches? Current Issues in Tourism, 8(2-3), 181-194.
McDonald, L. M. (2014). From Best Evidence to Best Practice: Industry Insights from Recent CSR research. In Proceedings of the 2nd International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship (pp. 6783). Zagreb: Centar za istrazivanje i razvoj upravljanja.
Miao, L., & Wei, W. (2011). Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 102-112.
Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627-645.
Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2012). The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude– behavior gaps and new consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1-2), 103-128.
Moscardo, G. (2010). The shaping of tourist experience: the importance of stories and themes. In: M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J.R.B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience: Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 43-58). Bristol: Channel View.
Moscardo, G. (2013). Marketing and sustainability. In G. Moscardo, G. Lamberton, G. Wells, W. Fallon, P. Lawn, A. Rowe, J. Humphrey, R. Wiesner, B. Pettitt, D. Clifton, M. Renouf, & W. Kershaw, (Eds.), Sustainability in Australian business: Principles and practice (pp. 273-314). Brisbane: Wiley-Blackwell.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 421 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Moscardo, G. (2014a) Do tourists travel for the discovery of "self" or search for the "other"? Tourism Recreation Research, 39 (1). pp. 81-106.
Moscardo, G. (2014b). Interpretation and tourism: Holy grail or emperor’s robes? International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 462-476.
Moscardo, G. (2015a). Tourism and sustainability: Challenges, conflicts and core knowledge. In G. Moscardo & P. Benckendorff (Eds.), Education for sustainability in tourism (pp. 25-44). Berlin: Springer.
Moscardo, G. (2015b). Stories of people and places: interpretation, tourism and sustainability. In C. M. Hall, S. Gössling, & D. Scott, (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability (pp. 294-301). Abingdon: Routledge.
Moscardo, G., & Ballantyne, R. (2008). Interpretation and attractions. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod, A. Leask and S. Wanhill (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions: New directions (pp. 237-252). Oxford: Elsevier.
Moscardo, G., Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2007). Designing interpretive signs: Principles in practice. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing.
Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2010). Sustainable luxury: oxymoron or comfortable bedfellows? In Proceedings of Global Sustainable Tourism Conference. Global Sustainable Tourism (pp. 709-728), 15 - 19 November 2010, Mbombela, Nelspruit, South Africa.
Negruşa, A. L., Toader, V., Sofică, A., Tutunea, M. F., & Rus, R. V. (2015). Exploring gamification techniques and applications for sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 7(8), 11160-11189.
Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: A review of research. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6(5), 253-270.
Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 35(1), 195-228.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.
Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro- conservation knowledge, attitudes and behavior? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467-489.
Prud’homme, B., & Raymond, L. (2013). Sustainable development practices in the hospitality industry: An empirical study of their impact on customer satisfaction and intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 116-126.
Radwan, H. R., Jones, E., & Minoli, D. (2012). Solid waste management in small hotels: a
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 422 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
comparison of green and non-green small hotels in Wales. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 533-550.
Rahman, I., Park, J., & Chi, C. G. Q. (2015). Consequences of “greenwashing” Consumers’ reactions to hotels’ green initiatives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1054-1081.
Nemec Rudež, H. (2010). Integration of corporate social responsibility into loyalty programs in the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 16(1), 101-108.
Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65-81.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (2013). World Tourism Day on “Tourism and Water”: greater efforts on water preservation needed. Retrieved October 7 2013 from http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-09-27/world-tourism-day- tourism-and-water-greater-efforts-water-preservation-needed
Wogalter, M. S. (2006). Purposes and scope of warnings. In M.S. Wogalter (Ed.), Handbook of warnings (pp. 3-9). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 423 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The Influences of Hotel Contexts and Framing on Tourist Behaviour. Comparative Analysis of Factor Configurations. (Conceptual Paper)
Stefan Raich
* Leeds Beckett University (PhD cand.) [email protected]
Key words: consumer behaviour, sustainable consumption, context sensitivity, representation, hotel setting, comparative analysis.
Introduction
To achieve sustainability the relationship between people and their environment is decisive when planning a socially acceptable, ecologically compatible and economically viable development. Consequently the analysis of (pro-environmental) consumer behaviour on holiday has to take into account the interaction and communication between tourists, their values, norms, attitudes, goals and the context and place, in which they consume. To analyse consumers’ (pro-environmental) behavioural intentions, in tourism research two major theories, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory are widely used (Stern 2000, Klöckner 2013, Han 2015). Whereas the first one focuses more on the rational-choice of an expected outcome in ones self-interest, the second one envisages a pro-social behaviour that follows values and a feeling of obligation to take action. Studies using the TPB delivered predictions for example of tourist destination choice (Lam et al. 2006) and pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel context (Han et al., 2010). Research on the VBN showed interlinkages between values, an ecological worldview and the awareness of consequences on the environment. The latter is often measured by the new environmental paradigm (Dunlap 2000, Stern 2000). At the same time it is an acknowledgement that the context, in which we live strongly influences what we consume and how we behave (Defila 2011, Barr 2011). Therefore this is of particular interest here, how consumers react to contextual changes and why.
People tend to behave differently on holiday than at home and they show discrepancies between pro-environmental attitudes, behavioural intentions and actual behaviour. The reasons for those phenomenons have not been comprehensively explained in research or linked with the analysis of different types of consumers. Research has shown for example: an attitude-behaviour gap between understanding environmental consequences of a holiday trip and behaving alike (Barr et al. 2011; Kaiser et al 2009; Triandis 1980), that consumers behave differently in a holiday context than at home (Barr 2011) and that a persons decisions under uncertainty are influenced either by more associative, unreflected or more rationally, planned thinking (Tversky, Kahneman 1974). Furthermore the guests
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 424 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
representation in a hotel context pose a certain meaning of the situation upon the consumer and direct their way to respond to reality (Moscovici 2000). For example Han (2015 p. 168) mentions that “no specific research has provided empirical evidence about the moderating impact of alternatives’ attractiveness [NB: on holiday] on the specific paths from attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and personal norm to behavioral intention”. There is a demand for detecting the role of the context and barriers for pro-environmental behaviour. Friedrichsmeier et al. (2013) and Defila et al. (2011) demand further research, concerning the interlinkages between frames, habits and contextual changes. Existing analysis frameworks might not be sufficient to deliver those answers. Hence the focus of this paper and the planned research lies on detecting empirical evidence on the impact of contextual differences on consumer behaviour and context sensitivity of different types of consumers.
This paper uses the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method for a comprehensive analysis of the influencing factors and their interrelation for pro-environmental consumer behaviour in hotels. For this reason a set of relevant factors has to be used and their interplay is considered through including factor constellations in the analysis. For this purpose the method QCA can be used and further on causal relations between factors and the outcome (here: pro-environmental behaviour) can be analysed through this. To gain a diversity of factors the study encompasses the supply side (context in hotels) and the demand side (specific guests) and the reciprocal influence on guests. In a planned study a comparative analysis between the context home and hotel is exhibited. In the theoretical work both subjective and contextual factors are gained based on state of the art research from existing models like the value belief norm theory (Stern et al. 1999) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and further research is included for that reason (literature review). The factors are translated into a questionnaire and field research is undertaken. Rarely any research has been done on pro-environmental behaviour at the place of consumption so far (Han 2015). In this study on the one hand face-to-face-interviews with guests are conducted in hotels to analyse consumers’ relationship towards environmental issues and their consumption style and on the other hand the hotel context is analysed to gather data e.g. on barriers and influencing factors and on actual consumer behaviour. In addition the strength of e.g. value belief is displayed by the method. By using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis method (QCA) (Ragin 1987, 2000), the results are analysed. Through this, contextual differences on consumer behaviour and the context sensitivity of different types of consumers are examined. Sustainability in hotels
The arguments for taking responsibility to implement sustainability actions in hotels are diverse and manifold. Basically they focus on benefits for the environment, for people or for the self, (e.g. hotels in destinations) (Schultz 2001). On the one hand it is argued that hotels should reduce their harmful effects on the environment in destinations (Han et al. 2010) and on stakeholders. Hotels consume enormous amounts of energy, water, agricultural products, land and other materials and they produce waste waters and emissions into the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 425 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
air. Therefore they can affect the environmental balance of destinations, which has effects on the local population, local industry, flora and fauna and biodiversity. This can also bring conflicts e.g. about water usage with agriculture or energy production, between masses of tourists and local inhabitants or about the usage of transportation systems. It is expected that climate change will even increase those problems (Iglesias et al. 2006, Gössling et al. 2012). Every destination has a different level of resilience that is not always coping with the charges tourism produces. Hence long lasting harm and degradation of natural resources used by the tourism industry is the consequence.
On the other hand the benefits for the hotels themselves are highlighted, e.g. by certification companies or NGOs (e.g. Travel Foundation 2012). Either those focus on inner utility like a more energy and resource efficient production of the services or and therefore financial savings (e.g. Chan et al. 2003) and engaging staff (Travel Foundation et al. 2012) or they focus more on outer aspects like meeting legislative requirements, gaining “competitive advantages” (ib. p. 5) or improved chances on the market through differentiation (Jones et al. 2014). When speaking about a sustainable development the triple bottom line has to be considered. That means benefits for all dimensions. When the aspects, benefits for the company and for the environment or stakeholders come together, we talk about win-win or win-win-win constellations (Carroll et al. 2010, Graci 2008). That means that business cases for sustainable tourism and for example financial contributions to environmental protection areas come together. Font et al. (2016) speak of a more responsible way to do business with focus on a personal benefit for the hotel.
For companies the marketing argument gets more and more important as studies show a growing conscience and demand for sustainable products in general and tourism products in particular. In a study for the German consumer research company GfK, Adlwarth (2009) claims that about 80% of travellers think that tourist companies “should be committed” to environmental issues, but only 35% are interested in CSR products, while the Travel Foundation (2012) has found that 70% of consumers want companies to preserve the natural environment and 55% want fair working conditions. Yet, Wehrli et al.’s experiments (2011) speak of about only 22% of travellers that consider environmental aspects as important when booking. When naming those studies it becomes obvious that there is a big discrepancy between wishes, statements, attitudes and actual consumption of tourists in hotels.
The central argument of this study is that the measures taken in hotels and the offered consumption setting are closely interlinked with the behaviour of guests. Both have to be considered when examining consumption in hotels. Even more as tourists consume comparable more energy, water and food than the consumer at home (Neunteufel et al. 2012). For the hotel, the guest is an important factor when taking sustainability measures, as their success depends partly on the tourists’ behaviour. If guests behave unsustainable, e.g. technical measures like flow restrictors can be ineffective. Therefore communication between the hotel and the guest is important, not only in terms of marketing but concerning consumer behaviour when speaking about sustainable hotels. At the same time tourists want to benefit personally from the hotel and feel that their motives are met in the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 426 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
best way. For example if a sustainable hotel strategy profits the company but means higher prices for the guest, then this will only address guests motivated by biospheric or altruistic values (details under 2.2). When talking about sustainability in hotels the tourist, his motives, needs, perception, awareness and behaviour should be kept in mind. In the next section, state of the art research on explaining consumer behaviour in tourism is highlighted.
Standard models to explain (consumer) behaviour
The relationship between people and their environment is decisive when planning a socially acceptable, ecologically compatible and economically viable development. Consequently the analysis of (pro-environmental) consumer behaviour on holiday has to take into account the interaction and communication between tourists, their values, norms, attitudes, goals and the context and place in which they consume. This relation is complex, as it cannot only be examined by describing the subject and the context and its stimuli and reaction properly. In order to learn about consumers, the rules of consumer decision-making and change in behaviour, the perception, framing and interpretation of the context and consumers’ representations have to be considered. Therefore as Moscovici (2000, p. 19) phrases: “What distinguishes us is the need to assess beings and objects correctly, to grasp reality fully; and what distinguishes the environment is its autonomy, its independence of us …”.
In order to explain (consumer) behaviour, different reasons and in action theory ‘motives’ have to be analysed to understand the driving forces of acting. Following Han (2015, p. 165) with reference to Bamberg, Hunecke and Blobaum (2007) „pro-environmental intentions or behavior are viewed as activated by either pro-social or self-interest motives”. To analyse consumers’ (pro-environmental) behavioural intentions, in tourism research two major theories, the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) are widely used (Stern 2000, Klöckner 2013, Han 2015). Whereas the first one envisages a pro- social behaviour that follows values and a feeling of obligation to take action, the second one focuses on the rational-choice of an expected outcome in ones’ self-interest. This paper uses those theories as a theoretical reference for gaining factors the empirical research.
The VBN theory emphasises the importance of values for pro-environmental behavioural intentions. The VBN is considered as a value-based, pro-social theory of action where personal norms are activated by a sequential process (Han 2015). The effect of this sequence is supported by empirical evidence (Steg, De Groot 2010, Dietz et al. 2005, Dunlap et al. 2000). The theory was developed by Stern et al. (1999) and links the norm activation model (Schwartz 1977) to value theory and the new environmental paradigm. In those, values are regarded as important drivers for decision-making processes and pro- environmental intentions. For example Groot et al. (2007) and Klöckner (2013) have found that a biospheric value is important for a pro-environmental decision-making process and behaviour. Following Han (2015, p. 166) an ecological worldview “is based on the acceptance of general beliefs” that humans are a potential threat to nature and such values shape a worldview (Stern 2000) from which “consequences for valued objects” (Han 2015) are evaluated. Those valued objects that indicate environmental concern are the self, other
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 427 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
people and the biosphere (Schultz 2001). The awareness of those consequences is measured by the new environmental paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap et al., 2000; Stern 2000). Therefore using the NEP it can be presumed that e.g. environmentalists are more aware of adverse consequences, e.g. for natural resources in destinations and translate them into ascribed responsibility and a sense of obligation to develop a respective pro-environmental intention. Nevertheless intention does not mean actual behaviour. Thus the sequential process in the VBN theory motivated by values, do not face potential personal or situational needs (e.g. comfort, price, quality), holiday motives (e.g. relaxation, no obligations etc.) or contextual settings (e.g. social influence, availability of goods and services) that might influence or even hinder people from exhibiting pro-environmental actions (Barr et al. 2011). Those actions are not necessarily driven by responsibility or perceived pro-social obligations but also by personal goals and different motives of self-interest.
The second model is the TPB, a “theoretical framework that explains an individual’s decision-making process” (Han 2015, p. 167) by a rational-choice approach. “The TPB postulates that attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control are a significant function of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, respectively” (Han 2015, p. 167). The theory was originally developed by Ajzen (1985) and in the following years expanded by the same author (Ajzen 1991). Building on the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen et al. 1980) it divides the determinants of intentions into personal and those “reflecting social influence” (Ajzen 1985, p. 12). The first one is an “individual’s positive or negative evaluation of performing that behavior”, “the attitude toward this behavior” (ib.). The second one is “termed subjective norm” (ib.) derived from the evaluation of social pressure. The theory of reasoned action formulates that such an intention can only “find expression if the behavior in question is under volitional control” (Ajzen 1991, p. 181). Hence it is argued that this is the case when a person gives a personal or social reason to perform an action. Further more the intention is a motivational factor of acting. Ajzen (1991, p. 182) cites that “ability (behavioural control)” is important to act. He “expanded the original theory of reasoned action by adding the concept of perceived behavioral control” as a non-volitional factor (ib., p. 199). This expresses the “perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior” (ib., p. 188). For Ajzen (1991) perceived behavioral control also reflects past experiences and following Gössling (2012) perception is also dependant on values. Those aspects are relevant not only to the influence of habits but also to the history e.g. of past holiday experiences for actual behaviour.
From an economic point of view Sen (2000) puts that aspect as a social-economic condition. In his capability approach, intentions are also related with the possibility to act. Those chances should be secured by politics in order to provide the opportunities to expand universal human characteristics and capabilities like cognitive abilities and social relations (Defila et al. 2011). We can ask, what that would mean for systems of provision in business. Which was not in the focus of that economic approach is the psychological way of analysing the perception of contexts in which a person is about to act, the representations one makes of the situation, e.g. in a hotel on holiday and how framing presets the way people treat their opportunities. Nevertheless Sen (2000) analyses very astute that the “mental
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 428 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
intensity” (ib., p. 29) of a wish to perform an action is contingent to peoples’ personal living conditions. Therefore he concludes that people bring their wishing to act in accordance with their possibilities (ib., p. 30). If those are expanded once a year on holiday, maybe with an exceptional investment, this aspect of indulging oneself something special might be a strong frame for enjoying those possibilities, above moral obligations to perform pro- environmental behaviour. Then again if pro-environmental possibilities in a hotel context are made an attractive or even the default option, they could be better promoted.
In Ajzen (1991) a number of studies are mentioned that applied the TPB and whose findings suggest that personal considerations are more important than the influence of perceived social pressure to predict behaviour. Also recent studies using the TPB delivered predictions for example of tourist destination choice (Lam et al. 2006) and pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel context (Han 2010; Han et al., 2010). However Ajzens goal is not merely to predict but to explain human behaviour. For that reason he distinguishes between three beliefs (behavioural belief, normative belief, control belief) that are considered as “prevailing determinants of a person’s intentions and actions” (Ajzen 1991, p. 189) and the related constructs of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. Whereas Ajzen (1991, p. 199) mentions the difference between intention and behaviour and phrases that “not all intentions are carried out” (Ajzen 1985, p. 11), those aspects are not further expanded. Hence one focus of this paper is, to examine the moderating effect of the context and the role of personal framing by integrating those aspects as factors. Through this, the work should deepen knowledge on behavioural decision-making and behavioural change.
The TPB provides some good predictions of behaviour but also faces the influence of alternative attractions (Han 2015) that can hinder people from building intentions and taking action in a pro-environmental way and from some wage heuristics for the envisaged heuristics. There are several pitfalls for a causal model like the TPB as actual behaviour is generated in an iterative process with the context or like Schäfer et al. (2011, p. 213) phrase it, in an interaction between the consumer and the ‘systems of provision’ at a certain context. Therefore e.g. subjective norms might be moderated by the actual comfort of fulfilling that norm by acting. Also Tversky and Kahneman (1974, p. 1124) have shown, that in situations of uncertainty people rely on heuristics that are fed by beliefs. Those evaluations are influenced by representativeness, availability and anchoring, e.g. the expectation of a certain outcome of consumer decisions. As Tversky and Kahnemann (1974) have shown through a range of examples, misconceptions of chance, biases in imaginability or the illusion of correlation and validity give biases to peoples’ judgements. Therefore when using the TPB, the evaluations of planned actions and also the perceived ease of those actions are endangered by misperception (e.g. through a lack of transparency), misinterpretation or heuristics (e.g. through a lack of information) that misguide people and can make a rational choice irrational and “satisfying” effects (Stocké 2002, p. 17). The representations of the context of consumption and the framing are the background of those processes and therefore have to be considered in theoretical frameworks explaining and predicting pro-environmental behaviour.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 429 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Contextual influences on consumer behaviour
Tourists tend to behave differently on holiday than at home and they show discrepancies between pro-environmental attitudes, behavioural intentions and actual behaviour. The reasons for those phenomenons have not been comprehensively explained in research or linked with the analysis of different types of consumers. Research has shown for example: an attitude-behaviour gap between understanding environmental consequences of a holiday trip and behaving alike (Barr et al. 2011; Kaiser et al 2009; Triandis 1980), that consumers behave differently in a holiday context than at home (Barr 2011) and that a persons’ decision under uncertainty are influenced either by more associative, unreflected or more rationally, planned thinking (Tversky, Kahneman 1973). But for example Han (2015 p. 168) mentions that “no specific research has provided empirical evidence about the moderating impact of alternatives’ attractiveness [NB: on holiday] on the specific paths from attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and personal norm to behavioral intention”. There is a demand for detecting the role of the context and barriers for pro-environmental behaviour. Friedrichsmeier et al. (2013) and Defila et al. (2011) demand further research concerning the interlinkages between frames, habits and contextual changes. Existing analysis frameworks might not be sufficient to explain those questions. Hence the focus of this paper and the planned research lies on detecting the impact of contextual differences on consumer behaviour and context sensitivity of different types of consumers.
Following these aims, two approaches should be considered that treat the issue of developing (consumption) behaviour and habits differently. Whereas for the associative approach, habits evolve from a associative connection between situative cues (stimulus) and specific behaviour (response) (Friedrichsmeier et al. 2013), in the connectivist approach the context plays a less important role for behavioural choices (e.g. consumption), and instead it is the socialisation or in former behaviour learned behavioural scripts that are recalled in different situations (Verplanken et al. 1997; Aarts et al. 1997). Following Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. (2011, S. 98), routines are formed by negotiation and cooperation with the social context. Those interaction contexts contribute directly to a „pre-structuring“ of behaviour. Friedrichsmeier et al. (2013) found that a regular choice of mobility options in stable contexts led to stable habits. It is questionable to what extent short-term experiences on holiday can influence habit formation. In any case both approaches deliver relevant perspectives to explain (pro-environmental) consumer behaviour. Hence this relation toward the context in behaviour formation in is the focus of this paper. Consequently in the envisaged study design to explain (pro-environmental) behaviour, actual behaviour is considered as conditional to the situation and context and therefore and aspects like former behaviour and habit are included as influencing factors. Based on that, more or less context sensitive consumer profiles are determined.
When examining the behaviour of consumers, actual behaviour does not (necessarily) represent believed values, norms, attitudes and intentions of a person. For example guests in a hotel context might behave differently than at home (Barr et al. 2011). This is the case
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 430 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
because their behaviour is moderated either by personal and contextual factors (cf. literature review). Therefore without considering this, we face a gap between (pro- environmental) attitude and behaviour on the one hand and between behavioural intention and actual behaviour on the other hand (cf. mind-behaviour gap). Guests might be confronted with limited availability e.g. of organic food or they cannot afford such products, are not aware of pro-environmental offers like hiking tours, the possibilities to save energy or separate waste or they do not get access e.g. to electrical vehicles as they might fear the technical complexity or the process to register lacks comfort. Those aspects can moderate the above-mentioned relation between values etc. and intentions. Therefore those factors have to be considered in explanation models for pro-environmental behaviour. Factors for consumer behaviour
In environmental psychology very often single factors like habits, attitudes or values have been examined (Friedrichsmeier et al. 2013), to understand consumption on holiday better, subjective and contextual factors are both included in the planned study, as actual behaviour is influenced by a range of factors. Those are derived from the above-analysed models, the value belief norm theory (Stern et al. 1999) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and e.g. the new environmental paradigm (Dunlap et al. 2000). Further state of the art research, such as Aarts et al. (2000), Bratt et al. (2014), Defila et al. 2011, Verplanken et al. (2008), Visschers et al. (2009) and Wood et al. (2005) is considered for creating relevant factors.
Consumer behaviour can only be sufficiently understood and explained by including the framing of the person and the context of the action in question. Hence the hypothesis of this paper is that explanatory models for consumer behaviour are not sufficient if they do not or rarely take into account factors for personal goals (framing) and contextual influences, its perception and the response by consumers. Empirical evidence for the latter shows the validity of this hypothesis in reality (Friedrichsmeier et al. 2013, Rückert-John et al. 2013, Barr 2011, Kaiser et al 2009; Triandis 1980). Following Defila et al. (2014, p. 152) consumption activities are “tightly embedded […] in structural, socio-cultural and interactional contexts” (translated by the author). Repeated activities become social practices and those emerge in interaction between the consumer and the ‘systems of provision’ at a certain context (Schäfer et al. 2011, p. 213). For this reason empirical evidence has to be gained on the specific responsiveness of consumers on contextual influences. Changes in consumer behaviour
With a change of the context, even only short time, consumption often changes (Barr 2011) but values are supposed to remain the same. What brings about those changes? If the context changes, routines are broken up and alternative short- or long-term solutions have to be found (Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. 2011, p. 98). This can bring about cognitive dissonances (Bratt et al. 2014). To reduce this feeling, facts e.g. on environmental consequences of actions might be ignored or the consumer adapts his goals. In that case actions can be the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 431 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
result of moderated discrepancies between values and contextual opportunities and differ from behaviour in another contexts. Therefore the relevance of the choice architecture (Thaler et al. 2009) in the hotel context and the communication of pro-environmental options become obvious. Further more tourists on holiday usually have more spare time than in everyday life but no empirical evidence is known, if this makes them automatically more affected by the consumption context. If that is the case, the context in the hotel is usually more consumptive than at home and this would result in a more consumptive behaviour. Concerning the personal intentions, on the one hand more time might result in more reflected, intentional behaviour, on the other hand this could lead to a more relaxed behaviour with moral obligations. Which seems to be decisive for that question is the framing or a more or less value driven behaviour.
Even if a person is basically driven by pro-environmental or pro-social values, the sequential process of values, described in the value belief norm theory (Stern et al. 1999, Stern 2000, Klöckner 2013, Han 2015), might not work when basic needs of a tourist are not fulfilled or achievable in the hotel context. That means bringing together the VBN and partly the TPB, which also Han (2015) tried. When bringing together the framing of a hotel stay and value based motivations the latter might be suppressed and responsibility towards nature might be pushed away on holiday. Following Font et al. (2016, p. 66) “sustainability empathy can be partly explained by the relationship between the person acting and the beneficiary of their sustainability actions”. If the subsequent needs on holiday are not met adequately by pro-environmental actions then sustainability empathy might shrink. Therefore it is decisive how hotel guests can realise their basic (holiday) needs with sustainable solutions. For this, availability, awareness, accessibility and comfort and affordability (price) are important criteria. One assumption of this article is, that consumers with weaker ecological intentions are more affected by the consumption context than others.
Expected outcomes and aim of the study
The main goal of this study is to find empirical evidence on the relevance of different factors including the context and framing on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in order to learn how to improve explanation models. Through regarding factor constellations, rules of behavioural decision-making and change can be derived. For this reason the research wants to gain knowledge on the sufficiency of different factors and factor configurations for explaining pro-environmental behaviour by using a qualitative comparative method (QCA). On that way, apart from existing questionnaires and factors from current research, new instruments and questions for analysing framing and representation of hotel stays by the tourist are developed. New insights are expected on the way people perceive, interpret and evaluate consumption contexts and how context sensitive their behaviour is.
The study tackles the discrepancies between (pro-environmental) consumer behaviour at home and on holiday and why people usually behave less environmentally conscious away in the hotel than at home. The analysis of the hotel context makes visible, which barriers in the hotel context hinder guests from consuming environmentally conscious. This is supposed to bring about new insights on the attitude-behaviour-gap problem and the gap
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 432 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
between behavioural intention and actual behaviour. Factor based explanations of the described discrepancies are expected. Therefore the results of this study can be used to improve the sufficiency of explanatory models. Based on a set of relevant and sufficient factors gained from this study, a further step will be the development of an evidence-based model for sustainable behaviour.
Study methods
In the planned empirical study the influence of contextual and situational factors on consumers (pro-environmental) behaviour will be examined by a comparative analysis of pro-environmental behaviour in different contexts, at home and on holiday in hotels. Through this behavioural changes in the light of a different context can be examined on a factor basis. The empirical research will be executed in three steps. First, the hotels are chosen and a relevant set of factors is defined, referring to recent research (see literature review) and own adaptations. Second, the factors are translated into a questionnaire and field research is undertaken. Questionnaire guided face-to-face-interviews are conducted in hotels with a tourist panel, before and after the stay. In addition the hotel context and its perception by the guest is analysed, in order to gather data on the contextual factors. Third, through a set-theoretical analysis with the qualitative comparative analysis method (QCA), profiles of consumer behaviour are described by their factor constellation in relation to the context in which they consumed.
The chosen hotels will be eco-certified and non eco-certified in two different destinations. This gives the researcher the opportunity to compare the different influences of a pro- environmental and a less environmentally friendly context. It will be examined if peoples’ behaviour is affected by a change in context and to what extent. For that reason a set of actions for mapping environmental behaviour (e.g. using electricity, water, etc.) is selected, among others derived from the NEP (Dunlap et al. 2000). The framework encompasses factors on personal aspects (values, norms, attitude, habits), situational aspects (framing) and contextual aspects (social context, choice architecture). For those well established measurement instruments and questions are derived from literature (e.g. Ajzen 1991; Defila 2011; de Groot et al. 2007; Bamberg et al. 2007; Han et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2000; Visschers 2009) and some new items have to be designed, especially on framing, perception and on contextual influences.
The translated factors will be queried by questionnaire-guided interviews in the hotel context, before and after the stay. The questioning in the hotel context has different advantages. External factors for behavioural changes are gained in consideration of the social context (e.g. fellow travellers on holiday) and the choice architecture of the hotel context. That means the specific settings, modes and existing incentives for consumption in a place (Thaler et al. 2009). Those settings are observed by the researcher in the hotels and well founded translated into a factor. It can also be analysed how hotel guests specifically perceive the context and react to contextual influences in a certain situation. The results of this show which person is more or less context sensitive. The notion ‘context sensitivity’ introduced here, signifies that different types of consumers handle contextual influences
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 433 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
differently and are affected by it in a different way, due to their personal preconditions.
For the qualitative comparative study, a medium size amount of probands is sufficient (Schneider et al. 2007). A various panel with differences in age, income and educational background is envisaged. Despite the probands are partly predefined by the selection of the hotels (three to four stars with and without eco-certificate) in the qualitative study factors are compared within the researched probands and representativeness is not a necessity at this point as the specific consumption profiles and their changeability are central here. Nevertheless further research with a larger panel should be done in the future, following the results of this study.
In QCA cases are considered as specific configurations of factors that are related to each other (Ragin 1987, 2000; Schneider et al. 2007, Blatter et al. 2007) that means the interplay of factors is analysed by this. By applying the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) it is possible to examine the influence for example of biospherical values on behaviour in relation to other factors. A factor gets its causal role only in the constellation with others (causal complexity). These factors are clustered in this study in personal (e.g. values, norms, attitude, habits), situational (framing) and contextual (e.g. social context, the choice architecture) factors. The outcome (here: pro-environmental behaviour) is determined through the interplay between a set of factors. The specific configurations of factors show different consumer profiles. Through the strength of change between home and hotel context results, the context sensitivity can be evaluated (ceteris paribus). With QCA, sufficient factors for pro-environmental behaviour are derived, by comparing different cases (=consumer profiles). If a factor is considered sufficient that means that every time it appears, pro-environmental behaviour follows. The fuzzy set version (fsQCA), which is a quantitatively graded version of QCA, allows the researcher to analyse also the characteristic of factors, e.g. the strength of value belief. Through the described design the study is supposed to deliver relevant, evidence based aspects of actual consumer behaviour on holiday.
The research structure provides significant knowledge from observing and examining the difference between potential behaviour expressed in values or attitudes etc. and actual behaviour, expressed in evidence based empirical data form hotel guests. The change in framing from the context “home” to “hotel on holiday” might bring about a shift in behaviour as well as the comfort and ease of behaving pro-environmentally in the hotel might influence this. QCA is helpful to illustrate the constellation of those factors in relation to the outcome, the actual behaviour. In addition qualitative interviews are needed to explain e.g. how guests perceived the context in hotels and if this had an influence on their behaviour and how their framing or representation of the stay influenced their pro- environmental intentions. Furthermore from the difference in behaviour, explanations are discovered on the reasons for behavioural change. From this point consumer profiles with specific representations are created, signifying types of context sensitivity. On that subsequent research should be carried out to find more general rules of behavioural change.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 434 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Contribution and outlook
The paper uses the notion ‘context’ instead of ‘place’, which is often used in environmental sciences and geography. Context is a wider notion also adaptable to different scientific disciplines than place. For a person, it signifies the outer world that can be a place, a person or a meaning given by any object. Further more the notion context sensitivity is introduced here, signifying the specific manner how different types of consumers handle context influences and are affected by it.
The planned empirical analysis contributes further insights on the effects of hotel settings (contexts) on environmentally responsible consumption, depending among others on specific consumer profiles and the representation of the hotel stay by the guest. The research is expected to add primary data on influencing factors and empirical evidence on the process of action generation when consuming, in reference to the framing and the context in which this happens. It is expected that the results will give advice on how to change the choice architecture, e.g. of presenting food in hotels and how to address guests better, to bring about more environmentally friendly consumption. In addition the changes in consumer behaviour are analysed and can be explained. Further research on the consumer satisfaction when confronted with controversial behaviour in daily life and on holiday should be conducted and is planned as a further step of this analysis.
We suppose to find evidence that consumer behaviour is better understood by not applying a linear process of decision-making but an iterative approach that has references to former behaviour, respectively habits, routines etc. and learnt social practices. Actors must not only have the intention but they need to be capable to act accordingly in a holiday context. That means knowing how to realise the intended behaviour and being able to do so. To conclude we can say that in order to develop social practices of sustainable consumption, there can be a hindering and promoting context. There might also be insufficient perception of this context or a lack of capability to realise pro-environmental behaviour. In fact the hotel can support pro-environmental behaviour and also influence personal norms and values by creating experiences that tourists make on holiday. Further research on the question how a new explanation framework, integrating frames, habits and the context should be designed.
This paper finishes with some limitations of the planned study. It will be considered social desirability in all questioning, however there might be new questions that have not been tested widely. Therefore the validity of the results will be discussed more explicitly. As the use of QCA is quite new to tourism the results might appear to be new but nevertheless might have to be translated a bit. Still this set-theoretical method is considered to deliver a insightful contribution to the generation and changes of behaviour by including different factors (e.g. context). This should set the ground for further research on those exciting questions.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 435 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Aarts, H.; Verplanken, B.; van Knippenberg, A. (1997): Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision-making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1355-1374.
Aarts, H.; Dijksterhuis, A. (2000): Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal- directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78(1), 2000, 53-63.
Adlwarth, W. (2009): Corporate Social Responsibility. Consumer Expectations and Behaviour in the Tourism Sector. 12 March 2009, ITB Berlin.
Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. (1980): Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ajzen, I. (1985): From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Kühl, J.; Beckmann, J. (eds.): Action Control. From Cognition to Behavior. Chapter 2, p. 11- 39. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I.; Driver, B. L. (1991): Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Science, 13, 185-204.
Bamberg, S.; Hunecke, M.; Blobaum, A. (2007): Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: two field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 190-203.
Barr, S.; Shaw, G. Coles, T. (2011): Times for (Un)sustainability? Challenges and opportunities for developing behaviour change policy. A case-study of consumers at home and away. In: Global Environmental Change 21 (2011), 1234-1244.
Berz, G. (2010): Wie aus heiterem Himmel? Naturkatastrophen und Klimawandel – Was uns erwartet und wie wir uns darauf einstellen sollten. München.
Blatter, J.; Janning, F.; Wagemann C. (2007): Qualitative Politikanalyse. Eine Einführung in Forschungsansätze und Methoden. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Bratt, C.; Stern, P.C.; Matthies, E.; Nenseth, V. (2014): Home, Car Use, and Vacation. The Structure of Environmentally Significant Individual Behavior. In: Environment and Behavior. Published online on february 27.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB), Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (Hrsg.) (2015): Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2014. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage. Berlin, Dessau-Roßlau.
Carroll, A. B.; Shabana, K. M. (2010): The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 436 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Chan, W.W.; Lam, J. C. (2003): Energy-saving Supporting Tourism Sustainability: A Case Study of Hotel Swimming Pool Heat Pump. In: Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Volume 11, Issue 1, 2003, 74-83.
Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A.; Kaufmann-Hayoz, R. (Hrsg.) (2011): Wesen und Wege nachhaltigen Konsums. Ergebnisse aus dem Themenschwerpunkt „Vom Wissen zum Handeln - Neue Wege zum nachhaltigen Konsum“. Oekom Verlag München.
Dietz, T.; Fitzgerald, A.; Shwom, R. (2005): Environmental values. Annual Review of Environmental and Resources, 30, 335-372.
Dunlap, R. E.; Van Liere, K. D.; Mertig, A. G.; Jones, R. E. (2000): Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3), 425-442.
Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R. A.; Spinrad, T. L. (2007): Prosocial development. In: N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, p. 646–718. Wiley, London.
Font, X.; Garay, L.; Jones, S. (2016): A Social Cognitive Theory of sustainability empathy. Annals of Tourism Research 58, 65-80.
Friedrichsmeier, T.; Matthies, E., Klöckner, C.A. (2013): Explaining stability in travel mode choice: An empirical comparison of two concepts of habit. In: Transportation Research Part F 16 (2013), 1-13.
Gössling, S.; Peeters, P.; Hall, C.M. Ceron, J.-P.; Dubois, G.; Lehmann, L.V.; Scott, D. (2012): Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. In: Tourism Management. Volume 33, Issue 1, February 2012, 1–15.
Graci, S.; Dodds, R. (2008): Why Go Green? The Business Case for Environmental Commitment in the Canadian Hotel Industry. In: Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. Volume 19, Issue 2, 2008, 251-270.
Groot, de J.; Steg, L.; Dicke, M. (2007): Morality and reducing car use: testing the norm activation model of prosocial behavior. In: F. Columbus (Ed.), Transportation research trends. New York.
Han, H. (2015): Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. In: Tourism Management, 47, 164-177.
Han, H.; Kim, Y. (2010): An investigation of green hotel customers' decision for- mation: developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. In- ternational Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 659-668.
Huijts, N.M.A.; Molina, E.J.E.; Stegb, L. (2012): Psychological factors influencing sustainable
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 437 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 525–531.
Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L.; Flores, F.; Moneo, M. (2006): Challenges to Manage the Risk of Water Scarcity and Climate Change in the Mediterranean. In: Water Resources Management. May 2007, Volume 21, Issue 5, 775-788.
Jones, M. A.; Mothersbaugh, D. L.; Beatty, S. E. (2000): Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 259-274.
Jones, P.; Hillier, D., Comfort, D. (2014): Sustainability in the global hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), 5-17.
Kaiser, F. G.; Schultz, P. W. (2009): The attitude–behavior relationship: A test of three models of the moderating role of behavioral difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 186-207.
Kaufmann-Hayoz, R.; Brohmann, B.; Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A.; Dunkelberg, E.; Erdmann, L.; Fuchs, D.; Gölz, S.; Homburg, A.; Matthies, E.; Nachreiner, M.; Tews, K.; Weiß, J. (2011): Theoretische Perspektiven auf Konsumhandeln – Versuch einer Theorieordnung. S. 89-123. In: Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., Kaufmann-Hayoz, R. (2011): Wesen und Wege nachhaltigen Konsums. Oekom Verlag München.
Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior – a meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1028-1038.
Lam, T.; Hsu, C. H. C. (2006): Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27, 589-599.
Moscovici, S. (2000): Social Representations. Explorations in Social Psychology. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Neunteufel, R.; Richard, L.; Perfler, R. (2012): Wasserverbrauch und Wasserbedarf. Auswertung empirischer Daten zum Wasserverbrauch. Vom Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Sektion VII Wasser (Hrsg.). Wien.
Ragin, C. (1987): The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press.
Ragin C. (2000): Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Raich, S. (2012): CSR im Tourismus: Thema angekommen – Aktionen selten. Der nachhaltige Tourismus ist raus aus der Nische. CSR Magazin Heft 6, 02/2012.
Rückert-John, J.; Bormann, Inka; John, René (2013): Repräsentativumfrage zu
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 438 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten im Jahr 2012. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Marburg.
Schäfer, M.; Jaeger-Erben, M. (2011): Lebensereignisse als Gelegenheitsfenster für nachhaltigen Konsum? Die Veränderung alltäglicher Lebensführung in Umbruchsituationen. S. 213-228. In: Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., Kaufmann-Hayoz, R. (2011): Wesen und Wege nachhaltigen Konsums. Oekom Verlag München.
Schneider, C. Q.; Grofman, B. (2006): It might look like a regression equation … but it’s not! An intuitive approach to the presentation of QCA and fsQCA results. Research Paper. Conference on “Comparative Politics: Empirical Applications of Methodological Innovations”, Sophia University, Tokyo (Japan), july 2006.
Schneider, C. Q.; Wagemann, C. (2007): Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) und Fuzzy Sets: Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Opladen & Farmington Hills.
Schultz, P. W. (2001): The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977): Normative influence on altruism. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 10, p. 221-279). Academic Press, New York.
Sen, Amartya (2000): Der Lebensstandard. Hrsg. Otto Kallscheuer. Rotbuch Verlag, Hamburg.
Steg, L.; Groot, de J. (2010): Explaining prosocial intentions: testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 725-743.
Stern, P. C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G. A.; Kalof, L. (1999): A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81-97.
Stern, P. C. (2000): Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stocké, V. (2002): Framing und Rationalität: die Bedeutung der Informationsdarstellung für das Entscheidungsverhalten. Oldenbourg Verlag, München.
Thaler, R.H.; Sunstein, C.R. (2009): Nudge. Wie man kluge Entscheidungen anstößt. ECON, Berlin.
Travel Foundation and Forum for the Future (2012): Sustainable Tourism means Business. Report published online at: www.thetravelfoundation.org.uk (access 2015).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 439 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Triandis, H.C. (1980): Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1974): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New Series, Vol. 185, Nr. 4157, 1124-1131.
Verplanken, B.; Aarts, H.; van Knippenberg, A. (1997): Habit, information acquisition, and the process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 539-560.
Verplanken, B.; Walker, I.; Davis, A.; Jurasek, M. (2008): Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 121–127.
Visschers, V.; Tobler, C.; Cousin, M. E.; Brunner, T.; Orlow, P.; Siegrist, M. (2009): Konsumverhalten und Förderung des umweltverträglichen Konsums. Bericht im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt BAFU. Zürich: Consumer Behavior, ETH Zürich.
Wehrli, R.; Egli H.; Lutzenberger M.; Pfister D.; Schwarz J.; Stettler J. (2011): Is there Demand for Sustainable Tourism? – Study for the World Tourism Forum Lucerne 2011 – ITW Working Paper Series Tourism 001/2011, short version, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.
Wood, W.; Tam, L.; Guerrero Witt, M. (2005): Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 918–933.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 440 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Crowdsourcing – New Ways of an efficient Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the Hospitality Industry
Matthias Straub*
* SRH Hochschule Berlin, Germany, [email protected]
Key words: CSR, Sustainability Reporting, Crowdsourcing, Communication
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability (CS) are playing an increasingly important role in the development of the hotel industry. A study conducted by the French Accor hotel group revealed that sustainability is a major influencing factor on the booking decision of hotel guests. Overall, 68 percent of respondents approved partially or in full to the question whether they would be willing to choose a hotel located at a less convenient location if the hotel adopts measures in terms of sustainable development. And on the question whether they would accept a higher room rate if the hotel engaged in sustainability activities, 66 percent of respondents reacted with partial or full approval (Accor 2011). A study by a German research institute showed that more than 40 percent of respondents desire an ecologically flawless vacation. In addition, 46 percent of respondents desire a socially responsible holiday (Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V. 2013). The results of these studies revealed that society and hotel guests in particular are increasingly acting in an environmentally friendly manner and pay attention to social compatibility and that a hotel's CSR performance has a positive impact on guest satisfaction.
Research revealed when guests understand hotels' CSR commitment to be community relevant, that CSR has a positive influence both on the brand evaluation (Parguel, Benoit- Moreau, Larceneux 2011) of hotels as well as on guest satisfaction. If guests perceive hotels' CSR commitment to be self-interest directed, their guest satisfaction will decline, especially when service related errors happen. In contrast, when the guests perceive hotels' CSR commitment to be for the common good, guest satisfaction will increase as long as the hotel's quality of service is high. (Gao, Mattila 2014). If viewed this way, corporate social responsibility can be understood as an enthusiasm factor in the hotel business.
Especially in the hotel industry, however, sustainability efforts are often understood as motivated by pure self-interest and the accusation of "greenwashing" is in the air. This problem is mainly caused by an information asymmetry between the hotel guests and the hotel. Due to the immateriality of the hotel business, guests are confronted with uncertainty and rely on trustworthy CSR communication when assessing CSR performance. For this reason, universal standards for CSR reporting are imperative (De Grosbois 2012 Holcomb, Upchurch, Okumus 2007), whereby no guidelines currently exist especially in the hotel
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 441 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
industry for CSR reporting or independent third-party organizations for monitoring.
This research gap is addressed by the present work and presents the model of bilateral CSR communication in the hotel industry.
The usual methods of CSR communication about CSR reports or the company homepage for example, represent a unilateral approach to the direction of communication from the hotel to the guest (commonly referred to as the signaling approach). In the long term, however, this approach is not promising. That's why the other communication direction (commonly referred to as the screening approach) should also be taken into consideration. Screening is achieved from user-generated content (UGC) or electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on review sites, which nowadays enjoys a very high level of acceptance by hotel guests (Cantallops, Salvi 2014). In this strategic model, CSR reporting and the CSR assessment are outsourced to the guest and the so-called "crowd."
Since the credibility and reputation of UGC or eWOM depends to a great extent on the number of available reviews, it is particularly important to ensure a sufficient number of CSR-oriented reviews and persuade guests to report on the hotel's CSR performance.
This approach of a crowd based CSR communication is based on three main steps: in addition to the traditional signaling approach, CSR communication is supplemented by the screening and monitoring steps, which is illustrated in the following figure 1.
Figure 9: Steps of external CSR communication
In the first step, "signaling," the hotel should provide information about its CSR activities and raise the awareness of potential guests for CSR-related issues. The second step, "screening," addresses hotel guests with the aim of recruiting them for CSR-oriented reviews and getting them to report on their CSR appraisal. The third step, "monitoring," is aimed at the general public or the crowd as an independent third-party control mechanism that critically scrutinizes the CSR reviews by the guests.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 442 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
In the framework model presented here, the CSR reporting and the CSR assessment are outsourced from the hotel to the guest and the corresponding crowd. This approach offers several advantages to the hotel: first, it decreases the CSR communication effort and costs on the hotel side. Second, the general public is used as the third-party control mechanism. And third, the perceived credibility of the CSR communication and CSR reporting is decisively increased.
The need for additional research will arise regarding the extent to which suitable CSR networks or platforms should be established. Due to the so-called homophily effect, review networks should be established to bring like-minded people with a CSR connection together. This objective could be accomplished by creating new CSR evaluation platforms or the extending existing platforms such as tripadvisor.com. To what extent the intended target segments could best be addressed should be taken into account.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 443 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Accor (2011): Sustainable Hospitality: Ready to Check in? Available under: http://www.accor.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Contenus_Accor/Developpement_ Durable/img/earth_guest_research/les_enseignements/20110624_Accor_Sustaina bleHospitality_Readytocheckin_bd_EN.pdf
De Grosbois, D. (2012): Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives and performance. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (3), p. 896–905.
Forschungsemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V. (2013): Abschlussbericht zu dem Forschungsvorhaben: Nachfrage für Nachhaltigen Tourismus im Rahmen der Reiseanalyse. Available under: http://www.fur.de/fileadmin/user_upload/externe_Inhalte/Publikationen/2014091 2_RA14_BMU_Nachhaltige-Nachfrage_Bericht.pdf.
Gao, Y.; Mattila, A. S. (2014): Improving consumer satisfaction in green hotels: The roles of perceived warmth, perceived competence, and CSR motive. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management 42, p. 20–31.
Holcomb, J. L.; Upchurch, R. S.; Okumus, F. (2007): Corporate social responsibility: what are top hotel companies reporting? In: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (6), p. 461-475.
Kano, N.; Seraku, N.; Takahashi, F.; Tsuji, S. (1984): Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality. In: Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14 (2) p. 147-156.
Parguel, B.; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. (2011): How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication. In: Journal of Business Ethics 102 (1), p. 15–28.
Serra Cantallops, A.; Salvi, F. (2014): New consumer behavior: A review of research on eWOM and hotels. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management 36, p. 41– 51.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 444 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Decolonising tourism education through Indigenisation: Responsive efforts to the corporate social responsibility of Australian universities
Tamara Young* & Amy Maguire^
*University of Newcastle, Australia, [email protected]
^University of Newcastle, Australia, [email protected]
Keywords: education, social responsibility, Indigenisation, curriculum development
Introduction
Businesses committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR) are guided by policy that focuses on the integration of social and environmental concerns in all aspects of business strategy and practice (Lund-Durlacher, 2015). This paper considers CSR in the context of education for sustainability in tourism. Our focus is on higher education institutions, and their obligation to produce graduates with a strong and developed sense of knowing about social responsibility, equity and justice. One way to achieve these goals is through Indigenised curricula. A fundamental goal of Indigenised curricula is to increase education participation of Indigenous people. Indigenised curricula can also develop skills, knowledges and attitudes that enable all students to contribute to a multi-cultural society, with particular cultural sensitivity to Indigenous experiences. These considerations are pertinent in tourism education to ensure that students have the critical and integrative knowledge to contribute to the sustainable development of tourism. Given the global prevalence of Indigenous tourism, curricula that embeds Indigenous ways of knowing (including Indigenous perspectives on Indigenous rights and self-determination) is critical for student understandings of the issues and tensions implicit in the development of Indigenous tourism. Aim
Our paper aims to put the Indigenisation of curricula on the global agenda of education for sustainability in tourism (see, Moscardo, 2015) and corporate social responsibility in tourism (see, Lund-Durlacher, 2015). Matten and Moon (2004: 324) note that universities play a vital role in CSR in terms of providing graduates with CSR skills and facilitating research that advances knowledge in CSR. However, they also argue that business curriculum - in which tourism courses are most often located (Airey, 2008) - has long been dominated by ‘socially irresponsible and ethically dubious assumptions of certain core doctrines, theories and concepts… [that] discourage awareness of CSR and ethical behaviour among managers and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 445 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
corporations’ (Matten and Moon, 2004: 329). The Indigenisation of curriculum can attend to this weakness by embedding Indigenous knowledges and, thus, decolonising areas of study. This paper extends ongoing research being conducted by the authors on the Indigenisation of university curriculum. We illustrate the commitment of educational institutions to Indigenisation initiatives, and show that this commitment aligns with their broader commitment to CSR.
Method
In order to gain an understanding of the commitment of universities to the delivery of socially responsible curricula, this paper presents a content analysis of the strategic plans of Australian universities offering tourism programs. The goal of this analysis is to examine commitment to Indigenisation, the purpose and scope of Indigenisation initiatives, and the significance of Indigenisation for tourism education. Findings
The tertiary education sector in Australia is repositioning in line with changes in global and national social, political and institutional developments. Over the past decade, Indigenous collaboration and education initiatives have emerged as significant priorities for universities across Australia. Such initiatives aim, in part, to address the disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and to assist in the process of Aboriginal reconciliation.
The purpose of Indigenisation initiatives within Australian universities is to address and work towards ameliorating the disadvantages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the higher education context, where participation rates and success outcomes are significantly below the population as a whole. The scope of Indigenisation initiatives reflected in the strategic plans of various universities includes developing pathways for academic attainment for Indigenous students, increasing the numbers of Indigenous staff, embedding Indigenous knowledge systems into programs, fostering commitment to social justice in students, and developing the cultural competence of all staff and students.
However, the necessary forms of curriculum renewal and the literature considering it are limited. We argue that the successful implementation of an Indigenised curriculum in tourism education will require the establishment of a community of practice for knowledge exchange. Indigenous knowledges must be recognised as an important and unique element of higher education. Universities that expedite Indigenisation in policy, strategy and practice can meet CSR outcomes of social responsibility, equity and justice. Conclusion and Contribution to Research
This study contributes to emerging debates on the need to incorporate non-Western and Indigenous knowledges into tourism education (see, for example, Tribe and Libburd 2016). Tourism educators can do much at the course level to enhance learning opportunities and outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. In doing so, individual educators can
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 446 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
support university strategies for socially responsible and inclusive education by implementing Indigenised curricula for social and curricular justice. Whilst our paper focuses on Indigenised curricula in the Australian context, this dialogue is relevant to tourism education internationally. Indeed, as Young and Maguire (forthcoming 2016) argue, the Indigenisation of curricula ought to be a priority in global tertiary education.
References
Airey, D. (2008). ‘In search of a mature subject?’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 7(2), 101-103.
Lund-Durlacher, D. (2015). ‘Corporate social responsibility and tourism’, in G. Moscardo and P. Benckendorrff (eds), Education for Sustainability in Tourism: A handbook of processes, resources and strategies (pp. 59-74). Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2004). ‘Corporate social responsibility education in Europe’, Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 323-337.
Moscardo, G. (2015). ‘The importance of education for sustainability in tourism’, in G. Moscardo and P. Benckendorrff (eds), Education for Sustainability in Tourism: A handbook of processes, resources and strategies (pp. 1-21). Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.
Tribe, J. and Libburd, J. (2016). ‘The tourism knowledge system’, Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 44-61.
Young, T. and Maguire, A. (forthcoming, 2016). ‘Indigenisation of curricula: Trends and issues in tourism education’, in P. Benckendorrff and Zehrer, A. (eds) International Handbook of Teaching and Learning in Tourism, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 447 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The impact of CSR activities of family businesses on consumer purchase decision
Zehrer Anita*
*MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Austria, [email protected]
Key words: CSR, family business, customer purchase decision
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is often referred to as a firm’s social obligation (Johnson et al. 2011) and has an economic, an ecological and a social dimension. Carroll (1999, p. 283) defines CSR as “the social responsibility of business encompass[ing] the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”. Over recent years the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become widely accepted, also in the field of tourism. Among others, this is attributed to the recognition of sustainability as a management concept, the growth of socially responsible investment and consumer pressure. It is expected that CSR has, and will have, a strong impact on corporate practices and investment strategies (Lankoski, 2008; Wahba, 2008; Blomgren, 2011; Brunk, 2010).
Although many empirical studies have sought to link social responsibility and performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Makni et al., 2009), few have focused specifically on family businesses. However, Hirigoyen and Poulain-Rehm (2014) found out that family businesses are more engaged with their stakeholders than non-family businesses. CSR engagement of firms increasingly becomes a decision making factor for customers purchase decisions and there is only limited knowledge in how far consumers integrate CSR criteria into their purchase decisions when choosing among a holiday vacation in a family business. The objective of this paper thus is to study the impact of CSR activities in family businesses on the purchase decisions of customers. Literature Review
The term CSR is a complex concept and philosophy and basically means “socially responsible behaviour in an ethical sense” (Votaw 1973, p. 11). The extent to which firms should undertake CSR activities has been an ongoing debate (Friedman, 1970; Lantos, 2001; Du et al., 2007; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). While there is agreement on the societal obligations of businesses, the scope and nature of these obligations are still uncertain (Smith, 2003, p. 53). E.g. CSR initiatives tend to influence purchasing behaviour and thus researchers found that there is a positive association between CSR and business performance (Lankoski, 2008; Wahba, 2008; Blomgren, 2011; Brunk, 2010).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 448 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Family businesses are the most prevalent form of organizations (Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Poutziouris & Chittenden, 1996) and family business research remains an emerging research area (Chrisman, Steier, & Chua, 2008). Tagiuri and Davis (1996) summarize the unique alignment of overlapping memberships of family members, their shared roles in both family and business, often leading to shared identities between family and firm; as well as the family members’ lifelong joint history, relationship, and the resulting high emotional involvement. CSR initiatives become a strategic concern also in family businesses, which naturally are perceived as acting socially responsible given the long-term business orientation of family firms (Chrisman, et al. 2013).
The most important conceptual dimensions of tourism consumer behaviour research is the purchase decision (Cohen, Prayag, & Moital, 2014), which is often based on the Theory of Reasoned Action TRA and the Theory of Planned Behaviour TPB (Lam & Hsu, 2006; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). TRA assumes that people act according to normative beliefs with respect to more than one individual or a group. Such individuals or referents are: partner, family members, friends, co-workers, professionals and institutions with authority (Ajzen, 2012). TPB is an extension of TRA. The difference is that it “has added perceived behavioural control as the determinant of behavioural intention, as well as control beliefs which affect the perceived behavioural control” (Chang, 1998, p. 1826).
This research is based on TRA and TRB and studies the link between CSR, the resulting attitude of consumers and its impact on customer purchase decision determined by literature in a family-business context.
Figure 1. Model “Impact of CSR activities on attitude and purchase decision”
The literature review underlines the importance given by businesses to their stakeholders with regard to CSR and leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: The better the perceived fit between CSR activities and the business by consumers, the more positive the attitude towards the business.
H2: The higher the perceived credibility of CSR initiatives, the more positive the attitude towards the business.
H3: The more positive the attitude towards the business, the higher the purchase intention.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 449 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Methodology and Findings
The research methodology was chosen to achieve a multi-faceted insight into the perception of CSR activities of customers in a family-run boutique hotel. The customers were contacted during May and June 2016 via a standardized online questionnaire by the boutique hotel, which was sent to the guests after their stay. This helped reduce the bias of preference statements of customers. The questionnaire was structured according to the model presented above. The last part of the questionnaire focused on socio-demographic data, such as age, gender, nationality, and level of education. The study affirmed the important role of CSR activities and its impacts on the purchase decision of guests. Most importantly, the results of the study provide a foundation for understanding the role of CSR in family businesses and how the attitude of customers towards CSR affects the purchase decision, which might be related to our general knowledge that consumers increasingly expect businesses to make a contribution to society. The results show that CSR does not only impacts on the attitude toward the company, but also on the individual purchase decision; this confirms the findings by Schleer (2014) and Devinney (2007), however is also contrary to other earlier studies by e.g. Auger et al. (2003) and Mohr et al. (2001). Limitations and Implications
The paper has certain acknowledged limitations that need to be taken into account when considering the results of the study and its contributions to theory. The most significant limitation is that this research was conducted in a single hotel business. Furthermore, the study was carried out among guests of a family-run hotel business, which results in some bias; a control group would justify the confirmation of the model. Moreover, the selected factors in the presented model were those for which we found empirical evidence as well as analysis available in the literature. Certainly, many other factors could be included and equally justified. Nonetheless, the model may advance the discussion to include other explanatory variables that may impact the purchase decision and provide a foundation for future qualitative and quantitative research. Despite its limitations, the study revealed some interesting implications for family firms. First, the findings help family businesses to undertake strategic CSR activities such as dedicating funds to job creation, education, or the arts, or similar, which are aligned with their core business activities to create shared value. Second, the potentials identified in this study should be pursued by family businesses to develop CSR initiatives, since there is a significant positive relationship between CSR activities and the attitude of customers, since theses again impact the performance of the business and thus support the overall competitiveness of family businesses. Lastly, the generated results are an indication for future research avenues and should encourage future research to undertake empirical studies to validate and/or modify the model presented in this paper.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 450 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Reference
Ajzen, I. (2012). Martin Fishbein's Legacy: The Reasoned Action Approach. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 11–27.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M., & Louviere, J.J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics. 42 (3), 281-304.
Bhattacharya C.B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 257–272.
Blomgren A. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility influence profit margins? A case study of executive perceptions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 263–274.
Brunk K.H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions--A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research 63, 255–262.
Chang, M.K. (1998). Predicting Unethical Behavior: A Comparison of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1825–1834
Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P., Steier, L.P., & Chua, J.H. (2013). The Influence of Family Goals, Governance, and Resources on Firm Outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 6, 1249-1261.
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 872–909.
Devinney, T.M. (2007). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad and the ugly of corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives , 23(2), 44-56.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 224–241.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, New York Times Company.
Hirigoyen, H., & Poulain-Rehm, T. (2014). The Corporate Social Responsibility of Family Businesses: An International Approach. International Journal of Financial Studies, 2, 240–265.
Johnson, B.R., Connolly, E., & Carter, T.S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: The role of Fortune 100 companies in domestic and international natural disasters. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 352–369.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 451 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589–599.
Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: A theory of why and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 536–547.
Lantos, G.P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 595–630.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
Makni, G.R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F (2009). Causality between Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 409–422.
Mohr, L., Webb, D., & Harris, K. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behaviour. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-67.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010). Gendered theory of planned behaviour and residents' support for tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(6), 525–540.
Schleer, C. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility und die Kaufentscheidung der Konsumenten. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Smith, C.N. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. A. (1996). Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208.
Votaw, D. (1973). Genius Becomes Rare. In: Dow Votaw und S. Prakash Sethi (Hg.): The Corporate Dilemma: Traditional Values Versus Contemporary Problems (pp. 11-45). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wahba, H. (2008). Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 89–99.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 452 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Tourists’ attitude towards and willingness to pay for a new eco-label in tourism: The potential for Blue Flag’s new certification for sustainable boating tourism operators, exemplified by the case of whale watching in Iceland
Isabel Lissner* & Marius Mayer*
* Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Germany, [email protected], [email protected]
Key words: eco-labels, sustainable tourism, whale watching, blue flag, tourist behaviour
Introduction
Sustainability sells. Like in many other sectors, in tourism the demand for products and services from environmentally and socially sound tourism providers is increasing steadily (Center for Responsible Travel 2015). There are several ways in which sustainable practices can be incorporated in the management of tour operators, tourism businesses and destinations. Eco-labels are considered to be one of them (Esparon, Gyuri & Stoeckl, 2014). Reliable eco-labels and other certification schemes encourage tourism professionals to assess the performance of their businesses or destinations on the base of pre-set sustainability standards and to make improvements where necessary. For tourists, certifications in the form of visual labels are helpful indicators to find tourism providers that place high emphasis on responsible practices (Aloisi de Larderel, 2000).
One of the oldest and most successful tourism certification schemes is the Blue Flag programme (Font & Mihalič 2002). The Blue Flag is an international, voluntary eco-label for beaches, marinas and since 2016 also for sustainable boating tourism operators, which has been implemented in 49 countries worldwide. The new certification for boat-based tourism activities is the first of its kind, focusing on a branch in tourism which has a high impact on marine and freshwater environments (Warnken & Brynes 2004).
This study investigates the potential and effectiveness of Blue Flag’s new certification for sustainable boating tourism operators prior to its implementation, exemplified by the case of whale watching in Iceland. Tourists’ attitudes towards, as well as their willingness to pay a price premium for a Blue Flag certified tours are explored. Furthermore, tour operators’ opinions about the new eco-label, as well as their perceptions of tourists’ environmental awareness and attitudes towards an eco-label for whale watching tours, are examined.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 453 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Methods
A self-administered survey of 337 whale watching tourists in Reykjavík, Iceland was conducted in September 2015 for the investigation of tourists’ perceptions of the environment, of eco-labels in general and of their perception of Blue Flag’s new certification in particular. A shortened, six-item New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale modified by Knight (2008) was applied to measure tourists’ environmental attitudes. For the elicitation of tourists’ willingness to pay a price premium, the Contingent Valuation Method was used. The chosen question mode was a payment card as recommended by Elsasser (1996). To approach tourists’ real willingness to pay as close as possible, a follow-up question asking for tourists’ certainty as suggested by Blumenschein et al. (1998) was applied. Semi- structured interviews were conducted with five whale watching operators in Iceland to obtain their opinion about Blue Flag’s new certification as well as their perception about tourists’ attitude towards an eco-label for boat-based tourism activities.
Results
The results indicated that whale watching tourists in Iceland had a strong pro-environmental attitude with a mean value of 1.85 on the 5-point aggregated NEP-scale, and that they were highly interested in environmental education during whale watching tours. 56% of the respondents strongly agreed that they are interested in learning about the animals they see during the tour, and 23.3% strongly agreed that they go on a whale watching tour to educate themselves. Regarding tourists’ attitude towards Blue Flag’s new certification, 59% indicated that they would be very likely to choose a Blue Flag certified tour the next time (32.6% likely), if there was no price difference between a certified and a non-certified tour.
Concerning a price premium for a certified whale watching tour, 18.8% of the respondents were very likely and 47.1% likely to be willing to pay for it. On average, tourists were willing to pay approximately 20% more for a Blue Flag certified whale watching tour. The average ‘willingness to pay’ of the tourists that answered the follow-up question with “definitely sure” (n=78) was €12.20, compared to €12.32 for the whole sample. Statistically significant correlations could be found between the willingness to pay and tourists’ educational level (Cramer’s V = 0.50, p<0.001), their nationality (Cramer’s V = 0.46, p<0.02), their perception of eco-labels in general (R = -0.235, p<0.01), their environmental attitude (R = -0.15, p<0.05) as well as their belief that an eco-label would prove that a company helps to protect the environment (R = -0.16, p<0.05).
The interviews revealed that tour operators receive Blue Flag’s certification favourably and are interested in receiving the award (based on interviews conducted with five whale watching operators in Iceland in 2015, names retained for reasons of confidentiality). Besides the external marketing benefit, they see the internal educational value of the certification process as an incentive to apply for the award. Regarding the effectiveness of an eco-label for whale watching operators, they share the opinion that only a certain percentage of their customers are responsive to eco-labels, as from their experience other factors than environmental responsibility weigh more in tourists’ decision to choose the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 454 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
operator. The tourist survey confirms this assumption, as the environmental friendliness of the chosen whale watching company was not rated as an important factor for tourists’ choice (m = 3.71) on a five-point Likert scale (1 “very relevant” to 5 “not relevant”). Nevertheless, the tour operators consider eco-labels to be helpful tools to gain market benefits. Financial benefits were found to be not relevant for the tour operators.
Discussion and conclusion
Based on the findings it is suggested that Blue Flag’s new certification has the potential to foster and promote sustainable consumption and practices in tourism, as both the tourist survey as well as the interviews with tour operators revealed positive attitudes towards it. If the price was equal, tourists were very likely to choose a certified tour over a non-certified tour, but the majority was hypothetically also willing to pay more for it.
The results are limited by the fact that only tourists’ hypothetical behaviour could be assessed, which could not be compared with their actual behaviour. Looking at the tour operators, three out of the five interviewed tour operators actually applied for Blue Flag’s new certification. To investigate if tourists would really base their decision on the Blue Flag eco-label, follow-up surveys with Blue Flag certified tour operators are necessary.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 455 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Aloisi de Larderel, J. (2000). Foreword in. Font, X; Buckley, R. C. (eds.): Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Wallingford. New York: CAB International Publishing, xv-xvii.
Blumenschein, K.; Johannesson, M.; Blomquist, G.C; Liljas, B.; O’Conor, R.M. (1998). Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation in: Southern Economical Journal, 65 (1), 169-177.
Center for Responsible Travel (2015). The Case for Responsible Travel: Trends and Statistics 2015. URL: http://www.responsibletravel.org/resources/documents/2015%20Trends%20&%2 0Statistics_Final.pdf
Elsasser, P. (1996). Der Erholungswert des Waldes. Monetäre Bewertung der Erholungsleistung ausgewählter Wälder in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: J.D. Sauerländer.
Esparon, M.; Gyuri, E.; Stoeckl, N. (2014). Does ECO certification deliver benefits? An empirical investigation of visitors’ perceptions of the importance of ECO certification’s attributes and of operators’ performance in: Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22 (1), 148–169.
Font X.; Mihalič, T. (2002). Beyond Hotels: “Nature-Based Certification in Europe” in. Honey, M. (ed.): Ecotourism & Certification. Setting Standards in Practice. Washington: Island Press, 211-235.
Knight, A. J. (2008). ’Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!’ How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection in. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 94-103.
Warnken, J.; Byrnes, T. (2004). Impacts of Tourboats in Marine Environments in. Buckley (ed.): Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Wallingford. Cambridge (USA): CAB International Publishing, 99-124.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 456 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The role of sustainability communication in the attitude-behaviour gap of sustainable tourism – the case of certified tour-operators in Germany
Christina Tölkes
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany, [email protected]
Key words: Attitude-behaviour gap, sustainability communication, sustainable tourism, focus groups Introduction
The extensive growth of the tourism sector brings with it both beneficial economic contribution and negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. In order to protect the resources tourism is based upon, greater efforts at sustainability are needed (Swarbrooke 1999, Gössling et al. 2009, Pomering et al. 2011).
The UNWTO defines sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, and the environment and host communities” (UNWTO, 2013). Sustainable tourism products intend to respect and protect the environment and the culture of the tourist destination. Also, these tourism products provide socially acceptable working conditions and bring socio-economic contributions to the destination (Belz/Peattie 2012; Wehrli et al. 2015).
Key players in increasing sustainability levels in tourism are from the supply-side as well as the demand-side. Tour-operators are of particular importance in this process as they have influence on their own company and on the different players embedded in the value chain (Budeanu 2007). Also, tour-operators can exert an influence on the demand-side; customers demand sustainable tourism products and it is their purchase decision which in turn influences the success of sustainable tourism (Belz/Peattie 2012; Sharp 2013).
Many consumers show a positive interest towards sustainable tourism (e.g. 61% of all Germans, FUR 2014). But although the supply of sustainable tourism products has increased, and consumers express their willingness to purchase these products, sales figures remain at a relatively low level (FUR 2014, Wehrli et al. 2015). There is a gap between what people say and what they do in sustainable tourism purchases (a.o. Becken 2004, Juvan/Dolnicar 2014).
Polls for the German market, for example, hint at the major role sustainability communication plays in this context. Consumers state that they would need more information on sustainable tourism products and expect the tourism industry to make sustainable tourism products more visible and accessible. Obviously, sustainability product
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 457 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
communication (by tour-operators) has largely been ineffective (FUR 2014, Wehrli 2015 et al.).
Aim
First, this study intends to provide a deeper understanding of the attitude-behaviour gap phenomenon in sustainable tourism. The investigation aims to identify the major facilitators and barriers in the (pro-) sustainable decision making process. The presentation will deliver preliminary results of a pilot-study. Further studies involve focus group discussions with customers of certified tour-operators in Germany.
In the second instance, the study focuses on the role of sustainability communication in the decision making process and aims to explore the challenges involved in sustainability communication towards customers. Method
The study adopts a qualitative approach based upon focus group discussions. The pilot- study was conducted with sustainability- customers of a wider span while the ongoing study involves focus group discussions with customers of certified tour-operators in Germany. Focus groups have been successfully employed to study on attitudes in consumer behaviour. Participatory action research will be integrated to support the focus group discussion.
Findings
The results present a comprehensive discussion on the facilitators and barriers towards decision making in sustainable tourism. The study looks at the role of sustainability communication in the attitude-behaviour gap, in particular, and reveals further research directions towards the communication design of sustainability messages. Contribution
Research on the attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism is in its infancy and needs further understanding (a.o. Juvan/Dolnicar 2014). Tourism research does not show any comprehensive studies on the facilitators and barriers to sustainable tourism. Another contribution is the holistic approach as all three dimensions of sustainable tourism are considered: the social, economic and environmental aspect of sustainability. So far, existing studies in tourism have looked at the environmental aspect of sustainability only (Becken 2004, Bergin-Seers/Mair 2009, Juvan/Dolnicar 2014).
There is need for further research on how sustainability communication can influence on the purchase decision of sustainable tourism products. Both practitioners and researchers will gain valuable insights from these results as to how to increase pro-sustainable consumer behaviour and how to communicate sustainability more effectively.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 458 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Becken, S. (2004): How tourists and tourism experts perceive climate change and carbon- offsetting schemes. In: Journal of sustainable tourism, Vol. 12, 4, 332-345.
Belz, F.-M. / Peattie, K. (2012): Sustainability marketing. Chichester.
Bergin-Seers, S. /Mair, J. (2009): Emerging green tourists in Australia: Their behaviours and attitudes. In: Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol.9, 2, 109-119
Budeanu, A. (2007): Sustainable tourism behavior – a discussion for opportunities for change. In: Journal of consumer studies, Vol. 31, 5, 499-508.
Chafe, Z. (2005): Consumer demand and operator support for socially and environmentally- friendly responsible tourism. Working paper No. 104. Washington. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/branding/documents/consumer_demand.pdf (Last retrieval: 5th March 2016).
FUR (2014): Abschlussbericht zu dem Forschungsvorhaben: Nachfrage für nachhaltigen Tourismus im Rahmen der Reiseanalyse. Kiel.
Gössling, S. / Haglund, L./ Kallgreen, H. / Revahl, M./ Hultman, J. (2009): Swedish air travellers and voluntary carbon offsets: towards the co-creation of environmental values? In: Current issues in tourism, Vol.12, 1, 1-19.
Juvan, E. /Dolnicar, S. (2014): The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. In: Annals of tourism research, 48, 76-95.
Mcdonald, S. /Oates, C. J. (2006): Consumer perceptions and marketing strategies. In: Business strategy and the environment, 15, 157-170.
Pomering, A. / Johnson, L.W. / Noble, G. (2011): Conceptualising a contemporary marketing- mix for sustainable tourism. In: Journal of sustainable tourism, Vol.19, 8, 953-969.
Sharp, A. (2013): Sustainable marketing in principle and practice. In: Well, G. (ed.) (2013): Sustainable business: Theory and Practice of business under sustainability. Cheltenham.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999): Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford.
UNWTO (2013): Sustainable Tourism Development. Definition. United Nations World Tourism
Organization. Retrieved 10th April, 2016, from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/about-us-5
Wehrli, R. /Priskin, J./Demarmels, S. /Schaffner, D./Schwarz, J./Truniger, F./ Stettler, J. (2015): How to communicate sustainable tourism products to customers: results from a choice experiment. In: Current issues in tourism, doi:
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 459 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
10/1080/13683500.2014.987732
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 460 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Communicating sustainability values of wine producers
Tobias Danielmeier
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand
Key words: communication of wine industry values, values of sustainability, wine visitor expectations, front-of-house / back-of-house, operational requirements Introduction
This paper examines visual design language used in the New Zealand wine industry to communicate values of sustainability. The contribution critically discusses how industry values are physically manifested in and communicated through imagery of vineyards and the built winery environment. This observational design study uses design precedencies to outline challenges and opportunities of trading on sustainability. Literature review
For a number of decades, increasing concerns for natural environments have established the necessity for sustainable production. Nowadays, adapting sustainable principals and conducting green business is considered best practice. Research shows that ethically conscious companies are often rewarded with increased brand awareness, consumer satisfaction, consumer loyalty, and in many cases, increased financial returns (Rainey, 2010). In turn, the label ‘unsustainable’ is associated with potential societal exploitations and injustices, destructive environmental resource management, harmful production processes, unnecessary waste production, as well as economic irresponsibility. Among the biggest fears are negative press, legal actions, and less business and turnover (Baumgartner, Ebner, 2010). This general view holds also true for the wine industry (Zucca et al., 2009; Barber et.al., 2010; Everett, 2016)
Research shows that using principles of sustainability in the wine industry leads to improved product quality, increased competitiveness, reduction of costs, and improved image (Leddy, 2013). The communication of producer values takes place via three main interaction tools; bottle labels, websites, visitor experiences (Danielmeier 2014). Winery experiences became part of a company’s marketing strategy and an attempt to manipulate public perceptions (Getz, 2000; Danielmeier, 2014).
A substantial number of wine companies feature commitment to responsible wine growing practices on their websites (Leddy, 2013). In addition, an analysis of back label content reveals that a significant number of New Zealand producers advocate their commitment to sustainability. However, ‘sustainable’ does not immediately translate to ‘organically grown’. The industry’s umbrella organisation, New Zealand Wine, distinctly differentiates between
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 461 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Certified Sustainable, Certified Organic and Certified Biodynamic. While 94% of growers are certified sustainable, only 6.8% are certified organic and only 0,2% are certified biodynamic (Sustainability NZ Wine, 2016).
Method
Design research aspires to increase our understanding of structures, systems, phenomena, processes, actions or motives. The aim of this design investigation is to identify the visual language and cues that communicate aspects of sustainability of wine industry businesses in New Zealand. As explained in the literature review, there is a lack of research on wine industry values as well as the communication of such values.
This study addresses this research gap by implementing a qualitative case study approach exploring six wineries in-depth. The wineries have been selected as a convenience sample including New Zealand wineries that are known in the industry for pursuing sustainability in their operations.
Qualitative semi-structured interviews (17 interviews with winemakers, winery owners and managers, and architects). Interviews took between one and three hours. Interviews were analysed using an inductive coding approach. The inductive coding resulted in three large themes with three sub-themes each. These helped explain how individual producers consider and try to communicate the sustainable values underlying their operations. Findings and contribution
Findings can be organised in accordance with reoccurring ecological, economic and social themes. For instance, obtaining relevant certifications is a commitment, an opportunity, but also carries risks. While many New Zealand industry players are growing wines organically, there is fear among vintners that pests or diseases could potentially harm vines and crops (Sinnott, 2007). In that case producers are only left with two choices. Firstly, spraying and violating the strictly regulated sustainable practices, which may stipulate reputational damages. Secondly, complying with approved practices and risking the potential demise of the business.
New Zealand’s wine growing regions are located in rural areas. With increasing wine tourist numbers, former service lanes turned into properly marked and sealed roads. The upgraded infrastructure assists individually motorised travellers, reduces dust settlement on vines and provides legally access for rental car users. However, the new infrastructure visually obscures the rural character and faster speeds reduce the feeling of tranquillity. Road signs that point out wineries add to the interruption of picturesque landscapes.
In addition, an increasing number of wind machines visually impacts on wine tourists. The devices reduce the risk of cold injury to viticultural crops by moving warmer air down to the grapes. Arguably, wine machines reduce the use of helicopters, however, societal dis- benefits have arisen. Similar to power producing wine turbines, there are rising numbers of complaints about noise pollution in viticultural areas (Marlborough Express, 2009), as well
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 462 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
as visual disturbance become a concern during consent application processes.
When leaving the road, winery visitors are often led through rows of vines. Prominently planted roses act as early warning system against pests and diseases and communicate the natural, respectful approach vintners love highlight on wine descriptors. They may also divert from bird nettings and the reverberant sound of acoustic bird scarers. Commonly, white plastic signs feature a company’s commitment to sustainable winegrowing practices.
When approaching a winery, a number of visual clues hint at today’s sophistication of this constantly developing agricultural industry. Wine storage in stainless steel tanks with cooling and heating abilities dominate the back-of-house operation (Nott, 2012). The strategic positioning of stainless tanks hidden away from the tasting room experience caters for the demonstration of wine as a luxury item that is hardly connected with dominating supermarket sales outlets.
With a more commonly move to locally generated energy and increasing consumer consciousness, wineries have also started to adapt use of solar energy (Nott, 2012). While these installations clearly support operational onsite power needs, it appears that prominence of installations also helps to visually showcase localised generation. The significance of the energy production in respect to overall energy use, however, is rarely quantified by winery businesses.
A relatively new phenomenon in the industry is the active use of wetlands for filtration of water used in winemaking processes. According to Sinnott (2007) 7 litres of water are used to produce 1 litre of wine. While the overall amount of water is little in comparison to most other drink producers, the wetlands are merely used as backdrop for the winery buildings and add to the idyllic, man-made landscape.
Considering common frameworks and definitions of sustainability it becomes obvious that today’s wine industry is not yet fully addressing sustainability issues. However, the industry is actively testing a range of promising solutions that aim at achieving without fully communicating their efforts. More qualitative and quantitative research from a range of disciplines is needed to investigate the issues and opportunities. Limitations
Limitations of this project are those frequently associated with qualitative research methods and the researcher’s subjectivity when selecting casse studies and design precedence. The examples are based on observations made by interviewees and the researcher in New Zealand wine growing regions and generalizability to other New World producers may not be drawn.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 463 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
References
Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18(2), 76-89.
Barber, N., Taylor, D. C., & Deale, C. S. (2010). Wine tourism, environmental concerns, and purchase intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,27(2), 146-165.
Danielmeier, T. in Harvey, M., White, L., & Frost, W. (Eds.). (2014). Wine and Identity: Branding, Heritage, Terroir. Routledge.
Everett, S. (2016). Food and Drink Tourism: Principles and Practice. SAGE.
Fountain, J., & Tompkins, J. M. (2011, June). The potential of wine tourism experiences to impart knowledge of sustainable practices: the case of the Greening Waipara biodiversity trails. In 6th AWBR International Conference (pp. 9-10).
Frosty reception for noisy frost fans. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/business/rural/2939915/Frosty- reception-for-noisy-frost-fans
Getz, D. (2000). Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development & Destinations. New York: Cognizant Communication Cooperation.
Leddy, M. A. (2013). Investigating the relationship between wine tourism and proactive environmental management at wineries.
Nott, C. (2012, September 9). Nott Architects, Christchurch [Personal interview].
Rainey, D. L. (2010). Sustainable business development: inventing the future through strategy, innovation, and leadership. Cambridge University Press.
Sinnott, J. (2007, September 2). Amisfied Winery [Personal interview].
Sustainability NZ Wine. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.nzwine.com/sustainability/
Zucca, G., Smith, D. E., & Mitry, D. J. (2009). Sustainable viticulture and winery practices in California: What is it, and do customers care? International Journal of Wine Research, 2, 189-194.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 464 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The influence of environmental attitudes and concerns on the voluntary carbon- offsetting behaviour of German tourists
Isabell Wulfsberg¹ & Dirk Reiser 2 & Volker Rundshagen 3 & Nicolai Scherle 4
1 Cologne Business School, Germany
2 Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kleve, Germany, dirk.reiser@hochschule-rhein- waal.de
3 Cologne Business School, Germany
4 Business and Information Technology School (BITS) University of Applied Sciences.
Key words: Mobility, morality, carbon offsetting, tourist behaviour, climate change
Abstract
This study investigates environmental attitudes and concerns of Germans tourists towards climate change. Furthermore it analyses if there are attempts to neutralise air travel emissions by means of voluntary carbon-offsetting. Past research has indicated inconsistencies between tourists’ attitudes towards climate change and a translation of those into corresponding travel behaviour. In particular the willingness to compensate travel emissions has not obtained much attention in the past. Since previous studies focused on countries like Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong, there remains a need to analyse whether the attitude-behaviour gap also accounts for German air travellers. Quantitative data was collected by conducting structured face-to-face interviews at the airport of Hamburg. The findings indicate that purchasers of voluntary carbon-offsets are almost non-existent among German air travellers, although they show a reasonable level of concerns when it comes to climate change. However, this is rather a consequence of missing consumer awareness since less than half of the respondents are familiar with the opportunity to compensate travel emissions. Yet, the majority of the respondents show a willingness to purchase carbon-offsets in future. The study concludes that behavioural change in tourism mobilities is not entirely dependent on moral concerns about climate change. Profound improvements in consumer education and communication are necessary to explain why and how tourists can make a difference. Introduction
In the 19th century the tourism industry emerged out of industrialisation and the following economic development, making travelling affordable to a great number of people (Butcher,
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 465 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
2003). Today, many businesses, governments and regional actors are dependent on a highly profitable tourism sector. However, numerous negative consequences for local communities and the environment arise with its growth. Since the travel industry is an extremely energy- intensive sector, it is for example seen as a major contributor to climate change (Becken and Hay, 2007). Especially air travel is criticised because of its remarkably high discharges of greenhouse gases (Jenkins, 2013). It is accountable for 40% of the CO2 emissions in tourism, followed by car usage and accommodations (UNWTO and UNEP, 2008). As stated by the International Air Transport Association (IATA, 2013), 2% of the total anthropogenic carbon output results from the aviation industry. Tourists’ air travel is clearly the largest environmental issue arising from tourist’s mobility (Hunter and Shaw, 2007).
Unfortunately, climate change will have predominantly strong effects on less developed countries, which are not able to adjust themselves as easily as the industrialised world. Based on that fact, Smith and Duffy suggest that ‘in a just society those capable of contributing more should do so to help those in less fortunate positions than themselves’ (2003: 94). In other words, tourists of the Western world have a certain responsibility towards the global society to act against climate change. In addition, for the sake of their own enjoyment, tourists should have a major interest in preserving the environment, the place of visit, when being on holidays (Butcher, 2003). Therefore, the reduction of air travel emissions represents a major challenge in tourism management, in particular with regards to behavioural change management. Literature review
When thinking about effective mitigation strategies in this context, consumer behaviour implicates strong power to make tourism products more sustainable. Next to mandatory measurements like the implementations of laws and regulations, voluntary behavioural change of tourists displays an important instrument when switching to responsible tourism. However, present tourist behaviour suffers under a missing morality when it comes to making responsible purchase decisions. In the following argument, it is assumed that off- setting is one form of moral behaviour, while at the same time recognising that it is not always the case. In this sense offsetting as a purchase decision is not necessary equal to environmentally friendly or moral behaviour (e.g. Barr, 2004; Barr et al., 2010). It could for example be argued that offsetting allows a guilt-free flying and discourages travellers from reviewing their travel behaviour towards more sustainable choices, in particular frequent flyers and binge flyers (Randles and Mander, 2009; Cohen, Higham and Cavaliere, 2011).
As stated by Fennell and Malloy (2007), travellers often behave without thinking about the broader implications. There are several reasons for this. In many cases, ethical choices in tourism place pressure on travellers because they find themselves constrained to make appropriate decisions. Bearing in mind that hedonic motivations dominate people’s minds, ethical tourism is not an easy topic for tourists to deal with (Weeden and Boluk, 2014). Another explanation for missing moralities in tourist behaviour was outlined by Butcher (2003). He argues that tourism displays relaxation and freedom, far away from the disciplines and moral structures of the everyday life at home. Despite of these facts, there
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 466 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
are still two conditions that excuse an individual from acting morally responsible: ignorance and inability (Fennell, 2006). People do not have a moral obligation to issues where they are ignorant of facts. In case of inability, a person is unable to act in a responsible manner due to factors like missing resources and insufficient mental or physical skills. If this is the case, the industry is obligated to enhance consumer education and provide a higher number of moral tourism products. It could be argued that it is time for them to ‘walk the talk’ in relation to sustainable tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 1993).
If we look at mitigating the consequences of air travel on climate, a range of possibilities exist to reduce individual travel emissions, such as a reduction of long-distance holidays or the choice of more energy efficient transportation facilities. Another useful tool to act against climate change is seen in voluntary carbon-offsetting. It offers to neutralise individual air travel emissions in exchange of a compensatory payment (Broderick, 2009). Compensation projects may focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon sequestration or afforestation (Strasdas, Gössling and Dickhut, 2010; UNWTO and UNEP, 2008).
In a recent representative study by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection, Construction and Reactor Security (BMUB) Germans expressed very high expectations concerning environmental and climate protection policies of the German government (BMUB, 2015). Yet, the concept of compensating emissions faces a lot of criticism, for example the inaccurate calculation of discharges by airplanes (Gössling et al., 2007) and the misuse of compensation tools by airline providers for the sake of improving their company image and attracting more customers (International Ecotourism Society, 2012). Additionally, consumers mistrust the off-setting companies regarding the usage of the offset payments. At the same time, it represents a first step into changing the environmental awareness and behaviour of air travellers. As DiPeso (2007) stated, voluntary carbon-offsetting is a reasonable measurement for reducing emissions in air travel, under the conditions that reductions are measurable, additional and verified.
Although voluntary carbon-offsetting provides a simple tool for consumers to contribute to climate protection, only 1% of the emissions in air travel are actually compensated (Eijgelaar, 2011). Based on this fact, a missing morality might also be true in this respect. As stated by Fennell (2006), a disturbing finding in research is that people often hold certain environmental values, however their environmental behaviour is not in line with these values. This phenomenon is called the attitude-behaviour gap and describes the gap between pro-environmental attitudes and the missing transformation of those into corresponding behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). In their research, Barr and Prillwitz also discovered inconsistencies ‘between positive opinions of sustainable travel and behavioural commitment’ (2011: 163). They are frequently encountered when regarding measurements to reduce the impacts on the global climate.
A number of reasons have been revealed in past literature with regards to the attitude- behaviour gap in tourism. Social desirable responses are probably the most common explanations when conducting interviews or questionnaires in this matter (Colton and
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 467 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Covert, 2007). Respondents are prone to answer in a way that satisfies the interviewers’ expectations and viewpoints about specific topics (Schuman, 1972).
Other researchers rather focused on behavioural reasons that hinder pro-environmental attitudes from being translated into action. Wehrli et al. (2011) and Kennedy et al. (2009) have shown that sustainability is not as important in the decision-making process of tourists as price. In terms of purchase decisions, literature indicated that financial constraints play a major role for 45% of the respondents (Kennedy et al., 2009). Unlike moral concerns, price is an important factor in the decision making process of consumers (Becken, 2007). Other factors include the shortage of appropriate supply, the absence of transparency of the ‘true’ cost and benefits of tourism products, ambivalent certifications and the lack of information (Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen eV (FUR), 2014). Kennedy et al. (2009) explored that about 60% of the Canadian respondents perceived lack of knowledge and information as constraints for environmentally friendly behaviour. Travellers need precise information on why and how they can make a difference (Budeanu, 2007). One of the main issues is the confusion about the term ‘sustainability’. It may entail that tourists do not get sufficient information about sustainable alternatives (Bowen and Clarke, 2009). Another reason for the attitude-behaviour gap of travellers may be lower accessibility and convenience when deciding for the sustainable product or service (Hergesell and Dickinger, 2013). In addition, lack of time to engage in information seeking and lack of support from other household members can be a barrier to environmentally friendly behaviour (Kennedy et al., 2009). Likewise, personal identity may have a strong influence on the mobility decisions since people see a certain role of self in their travel behaviour (Hibbert et al., 2013). They identify themselves by undertaking a certain holiday, or at least try to reach their desired future self. Hibbert et al. (2013) stressed that this influence is able to dominate ethical tourist behaviour.
Similar explanations exist with regards to the attitude-behaviour gap in combination with the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour. According to Gössling et al. (2006), many travellers perceive tourism as a critical contributor to environmental problems. Still, the majority of them are not aware of their own environmental impact and often prefer the airplane to get to a destination. This can notably be explained by regarding the theoretical assumptions of Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) who identified two types of attitudes: general attitudes towards people, objects, policies or other targets and the attitude towards performing certain behaviour. Based on this notion, travellers might have positive attitudes towards climate protection but are not prepared to personally change their behaviour, for instance by changing to alternative mobility choices or compensating their carbon output. In comparison to environmental behaviour at home, a reduction, abandonment or suppression of moral concerns often occurs with regards to travel activities (Cohen, Higham and Reis, 2013). A study among tourists from New Zealand has indicated a lack of specific knowledge and information about air travel and its consequences (Becken, 2007). However, an awareness about one’s influence is a prerequisite for behavioural change (Cialdini, 2001). It was shown that just a few respondents knew the concept of voluntary carbon-offsetting. For those who are aware of the connection between air travel and climate change, the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 468 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
responsibility of mitigating these impacts was often seen with the airline (Becken, 2007). In a German study, destination managers saw the main obligations for applying such changes lying with governments, tourism businesses and destinations (Mascontour, 2015). McKercher et al. (2010) also detected a low awareness of compensation programmes among Hong Kong residents. Respondents who compensated CO2 emissions were almost non-existent. Only 20% have changed their travel patterns due to their environmental concerns although climate change was judged as a serious environmental issue. Similar findings by Mair (2011) revealed that only 10% of Australian and British tourists had purchased a voluntary carbon-offset before. When it comes to German tourists, Wehrli et al. (2011) identified them as being one of the most critical groups, given that 65% do not consider carbon-offsetting as a part of sustainable tourism.
Next to country-specific differences, several demographic impacts seem to have an influence on the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of air travellers (Mair, 2011): people who compensate their greenhouse gas emissions are prone to be male, younger and better educated. Different results were published by Wells, Ponting and Peattie (2011) who found out that the general environmental responsiveness increases with age.
Obviously, the grounds for the missing participation in carbon compensation schemes were addressed thoroughly in past literature. However, these studies were conducted in countries like Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Great Britain. Subsequently, there remains a need to analyse whether the attitude-behaviour gap is also applicable to German air travellers. For this reason, this paper will examine whether there is a gap between pro- environmental attitudes towards climate change and the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers. In doing so, it will be examined whether moral concerns have an influence on tourists’ mobility choices.
Methodology
As mentioned earlier, past literature has proven an attitude-behaviour gap with regards to the compensation behaviour among Australian tourists (Mair, 2011; Prideaux, Coghlan and McKercher, 2011), British (Mair, 2011) and Hong Kong tourists (McKercher et al., 2010). This study will focus on the question whether the attitude-behaviour gap also accounts for the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German travellers. Hence, the first hypothesis of this study is the following:
H.1: There is a gap between pro-environmental attitudes towards climate change and the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers.
According to Becken (2007), tourists in New Zealand are considerably unfamiliar with the concept of compensating carbon emissions. McKercher et al. (2010) also discovered a low awareness of compensation schemes among Hong Kong residents. On this account, assumptions are made about a lack of knowledge regarding the possibility of carbon- offsetting among German tourists.
H.2: There is a lack of knowledge among German tourists with regards to the
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 469 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
concept of voluntary carbon-offsetting.
Moreover, demographic factors also seem to have an influence on the voluntary carbon- offsetting behaviour of Australian and British tourists (Mair, 2011). Past literature suggested that those who already participated in a compensation programme are prone to be male, younger and better educated than those who are less likely to offset their air travel emissions. On these grounds, the third hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H.3: Young, male and educated German tourists are more likely to participate in a voluntary carbon-offsetting programme.
The hypotheses will be tested using a quantitative research design. The study intends to receive statistical descriptions of moral attitudes and behaviours towards climate change. On these grounds, surveys are recommendable as they are used to seek for specific patterns of a population by collecting a great amount of data (Denscombe, 2010). The decision was made for structured face-to-face interviews, which were conducted at the Hamburg airport. A high response rate can be achieved using interview surveys, because participants can be directly addressed and convinced to take part in the interview (O'Leary and Miller, 2003). In addition, they can be accomplished in a very short timeframe (Altinay and Paraskevas, 2008). This is very important for the current investigation, as it will be carried out at an airport, where people might be under time pressure to catch a flight and only have a limited amount of time available. Correspondingly, difficulties have to be expected in terms of busy schedules of participants (Altinay and Paraskevas, 2008). Furthermore, limitations may arise in terms of receiving reliable data, as it is unlikely to achieve objective and consistent interview settings for each respondent (Denscombe, 2010). Care should be taken with respect to interviewer bias, as interviewees are likely to please the interviewer and respond accordingly (Adams et al., 2007). The interviewer adopted a neutral and reserved attitude towards the opinions and statements of the respondent (Denscombe, 2010).
Because the target group of German air travellers is unknown, it is not feasible to select participants on a random basis for this study. On this account, the choice was made for convenience sampling, which belongs to the group of non-probability sampling techniques. People have the chance to be selected if they are present at the Hamburg airport in the particular timeframe. In order to minimise any sort of selection bias, interviews were conducted on three different weekdays at different times of the day in order to attain a wide range of diverse air travellers. Moreover, the interviewer tried to select participants on a random basis in order to keep response bias at a minimum.
The participants were interviewed between 21 February and 2 March 2014 in the public area of terminal one and two, in the departure and arrival sections as well as on the viewing platform. Since the focus of the study is on German air travellers, interviewees were chosen on the condition of having participated at least once in an airline flight and being a German citizen.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 470 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The interview template is based on a former study carried out by McKercher et al. (2010) who analysed Hong Kong residents in terms of attitudes towards tourism and climate change. The survey was slightly modified and adapted for the purpose of this investigation. The template covered a total of 22 questions and did not last longer than ten minutes per person. It is divided into four parts covering different topic areas (based on McKercher et al., 2010). Part A aims to identify travel patterns over the past twelve months as well as the preferred mode of transport. Part B incorporates questions about the knowledge and awareness of environmental issues, trying to detect the respondent’s level of concern and their environmental behaviour. Information about tourism and the environment are obtained in part C, including the level of knowledge about carbon-offsetting programmes and the interviewees’ willingness to compensate CO2 emissions when travelling. Finally, respondents were asked to give some information about standard demographic data in part D, including age, gender and education. The survey results were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Results
The following sections will deal with the analysis and interpretation of the survey results. Demographic data and travel patterns of the respondents are briefly outlined in the first part, followed by information about general environmental awareness and concern among German air travellers. The main part will focus on the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour by regarding possible interrelations to the previously analysed level of concern, informational background and demographics.
A total of 100 respondents were interviewed at the Hamburg airport, thereof 43% were male and 57% female. When it comes to age structure, 32% of the respondents belong to the age group of 25 years and younger, 18% are between 26 and 35 years old, while the smallest group are the age of 36 to 45 years. Respondents above 55 years are represented by 21%. Regarding the educational level, over half of the interviewees have achieved a university degree and an additional one-fifth have completed their high school (Abitur). Only 8% of the respondents went to the German lower secondary school (Hauptschule), which implies a nine-year course. A higher level of secondary school (Mittlere Reife) was achieved by 10%. The same percentage was also found for respondents who completed an apprenticeship.
In terms of travel patterns, participants were asked to name the number of domestic and international pleasure trips they have taken in the last twelve months, lasting at least one night. On average 3.73 annual pleasure trips are done domestically within Germany, followed by 2.05 visits to other European countries and 0.32 trips to other continents. Hence, Germans most frequently book domestic holidays. In terms of the preferred transport facility, the majority of respondents prefer to travel by airplane (76%). This is not surprising since the survey was conducted at the airport with a higher probability of meeting frequent air travellers. The car is ranked second with 42%, followed by the train, which is favoured by 20% of the respondents. The fact that travelling by airplane and car enjoys the highest popularity among German tourists suggests a desire for comfort and convenience
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 471 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
when going on holiday, as also reported by Budeanu (2007).
Environmental awareness and concerns
Interesting findings become evident when looking at the respondents’ level of awareness and concern in terms of environmental issues. Altogether 69% of German tourists are very or moderately concerned that changes to the environment will affect their lives. This is to some extent similar to McKercher et al. (2010), since the majority of the Hong Kong residents were identified to be very concerned about environmental changes in their lives. In the recent results, only 12% of the respondents reported no concern at all. Furthermore, the findings showed that women are bothered to a higher extent about environmental issues than men. A total of 44 women and 25 men indicate concerns. Similar to Wells, Ponting and Peattie (2011) female travellers seem more likely to show a higher environmental awareness than men.
When looking at specific issues, land, sea, air and noise pollution are seen as the most serious problems affecting respondent’s hometowns, followed by extreme weather events, such as storms, flooding and droughts. These results are in partial agreement with Gössling et al. (2006), who found that tourists in Zanzibar judge extreme weather events as having the strongest climatic impacts on their destination. According to these findings, it is obvious that tourists start to become conscious about the imminent consequences of the changing climate, which will not omit peoples’ hometowns. Based on these results it can be concluded that ignorance (Fennell, 2006), as one reason for the missing moral tourist behaviour, can be excluded since respondents are fully aware of the effects of climate change. Similar findings appear when asking for major environmental issues on a global scale. These results match findings by Becken (2007), who reported that climate change is rated as being a major environmental crisis these days. Clear evidence for this aspect was also received by asking respondents directly about the perceived threat of climate change. 37% judged climate change as very serious, and almost half of the respondents as moderately serious. Only one survey participant did not feel any threat by a changing climate.
As a next step, interviewees were asked to state whether they see climate change as a major concern within the next twelve months and the next ten years. Overall, 61% do not consider climate change as a major threat within the next year. In spite of this, almost 70% think that it will become a major concern during the next decade.
On the whole, German tourists show a reasonable level of awareness and concern regarding environmental issues and the imminence of climate change. These factors represent essential pre-conditions for the switch to pro-environmental travel behaviour. For this reasons, an analysis of tourists’ environmental behaviour was carried out in the next section.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 472 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Pro-environmental behaviour
When asking the respondents to what extent they would call themselves an environmentally friendly person, a strong trend towards a positive self-assessment became evident. 85% of all interviewees answered this question with ‘yes’ or ‘rather yes’. Only 15% did not see themselves as environmentally friendly persons. It shall be mentioned at this point that participants might be prone to answer in a social desirable way due to certain expectations of the interviewer (Colton and Covert, 2007; Schuman, 1972). In order to illuminate this point, an open question was used to identify measures that interviewees have taken in order to reduce their negative environmental impacts. Waste management was mentioned by 23.3% of the respondents, including waste separation and avoidance. On the second rank, people named the avoidance of car usage and the switch to fuel-efficient cars. In terms of climate change, this is a very effective approach to reduce CO2 emissions. Noteworthy action was also taken with regards to energy savings and green electricity.
However, in terms of changes in travel behaviour, only 14% of the respondents have changed their travel behaviour as a response to concerns about the environment. Measures included local travel within Germany, the use of public transport, car sharing and bike tours as well as a reduction in air travel and car usage in general. An important fact for the following results is the change in air travel behaviour, though only five interviewees reported such. Even though Hergesell and Dickinger (2013) connected general environmental friendliness in the everyday life behaviour with sustainable transport choices, the actual findings cannot support this correlation. It can rather be assumed that people do not critically assess their travel behaviour with climate change issues. As stated earlier, the respondents indicated a great concern about the threat of the changing climate, which is expected to have serious impacts in the next ten years. Yet, it seems that this does not have implications for people’s travel patterns. The results support Butcher’s (2003) findings stating that tourists want to relax during their holidays, far away from the moral structures of their everyday life at home. Voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour
The following section will highlight the key results on the subject of the voluntary carbon- offsetting behaviour of German tourists. Based on the literature review, it was hypothesised that there will be a gap between pro-environmental attitudes towards climate change and the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers. It was already recognized earlier that 86% of the respondents adjudge a certain threat towards climate change. According to actual findings, however, only 4% have ever voluntarily participated in a carbon-offsetting scheme before. Likewise, McKercher et al. (2010) and Mair (2011) also detected a very low participation in compensation programmes among their respondents. In good agreement with Mair (2011) and Prideaux, Coghlan and McKercher (2011), the study shows that despite pro-environmental attitudes tourists do not automatically seek for ways to reduce their impact on the climate when flying. Accordingly, the assumption is maintained that German tourists indicate an attitude-behaviour gap when it comes to CO2 compensation in air travel. Hence, the first hypothesis can be supported, assuming that
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 473 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
there is a gap between pro-environmental attitudes towards climate change and the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers.
On the other hand, the almost non-existent purchase of carbon offsets might also be as a result of the unfamiliarity with the concept of CO2 compensation (Becken, 2007). In order to confirm this theory, respondents were asked if they are familiar with the term ‘carbon- offsetting’. The findings revealed that just under half of the tourists are familiar with the concept, while 30% have heard of it but do not know the meaning. About 24% of the participants are not at all familiar with the idea of compensating greenhouse gas emissions. It was also shown that women tend to be slightly more aware of the concept than men. In addition, the familiarity with airlines and other organisations that offer the possibility of voluntary carbon-offsetting was examined. The results indicated that 21% of the respondents could name an organisation that offers carbon compensation. The majority of those were familiar with airlines that cooperate with a specialised offset provider. The most frequently mentioned was the German airline Lufthansa.
As described above, over half of German air travellers reveal a lack of knowledge with regards to the concept of voluntary carbon-offsetting. The second hypothesis can also be supported on the basis of these findings. Similar research was carried out by McKercher et al. (2010), who highlighted a low awareness of voluntary carbon-offsetting programmes among their respondents. One possible explanation is the insufficient supply with related information by travel agencies, airlines, and other intermediaries in the booking process. There is still a possibility that a higher number of tourists would have compensated if they were better informed about voluntary compensation programmes. Therefore, the discrepancy between pro-environmental concerns and the missing translation of those into corresponding behaviour can only be partially applied to the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers.
Since the respondents did not show much engagement for sustainable travel, the following part focuses on tourist’s willingness to change their travel behaviour in the future. For this purpose, interviewees were asked whether they would make a contribution towards reducing the carbon output that was created during air travel, bearing in mind their income and travel expenses. Surprisingly, over half of the tourists are willing to offset their emissions in the future (but: willingness is not necessary followed by action), while 25% are not prepared to donate a compensatory payment. Although past literature has indicated a critical attitude of Germans towards offsetting (Wehrli et al., 2011), the current study points to a surprisingly high willingness to participate in such.
The affirmative respondents were thereupon asked to name a percentage of their total flight costs they would be willing to donate. The median of 5% is similar for male and female tourists and also corresponds to findings of other studies (McKercher et al., 2010). But when regarding the average surcharge (mean), men (8.4%) are willing to contribute a higher amount than women (6.7%). Overall, these are satisfying results with regards to the generosity of German tourists. It was also found that 73% of the affirmative respondents indicated a preference for mandatory compensation programmes. This would imply that
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 474 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
every passenger has to pay a premium amount when travelling. Many of them strongly believed that every person should be obliged to pay for carbon neutralisation.
Those 25 respondents, who were not willing to compensate their air travel emissions, were asked for the major reasons. 50% of them reported that paying an extra amount for offsetting carbon emissions would be too expensive. Hence, the highest score was reached with regards to price, as already described in former studies by Becken (2007) and Wehrli et al (2011). In line with findings by Cohen, Higham and Reis (2013), the imbalance between environmental worries and personal restrictions, such as the payment of premium prices, leads to the decision against a participation in offset programmes.
Another reason for not willing to offset is the lack of information about compensation schemes. As discussed earlier, this fact supports the unfamiliarity with carbon-offsetting organisations. According to Fennell (2006), inability is one condition where a person can be excused from acting morally responsible. In this case, German air travellers are unable to behave ethical due to missing resources like money and information. Besides, tourists also reported a lack of trust towards offset providers, which implies a certain degree of weak communication and deficient transparency. As already stressed by Eijgelaar (2011), there is an urgent necessity to improve consumer education regarding carbon-offset schemes, since only a few providers offer proper information about emission reduction measures. It is also possible that consumers may lose trust in airlines because they seem to misuse the compensation tool for the improvement of image and public reputation (International Ecotourism Society, 2012). Identical to findings by Becken (2007), a small number of respondents (13.3 %) saw the payment of carbon taxes as being the responsibility of others, especially the airline itself.
Another question focused on the willingness to make additional changes in the travel behaviour in future apart from compensating emissions. It was assessed whether respondents actually expect to pay a mandatory carbon tax in future. Around 46% affirmed this scenario. Prideaux, Coghlan and McKercher (2011) also stressed that tourists are prepared to pay a compulsory extra amount.
Moreover, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions of tourism, two important mitigation measures were addressed. Tourists, for example, can make a major difference if they reduce their flying behaviour by switching to other means of transport. Interestingly, only 13% of the total participants are willing to travel less by plane. These findings should certainly be seen in relation to the travel frequency of individuals. Earlier findings showed that the respondents seem to travel on a regular basis and 76% prefer the airplane for pleasure trips. Therefore it can be assumed that most of the tourists enjoy frequent air travel. Since 63% are not prepared to restrict their air travel behaviour, the willingness to relinquish travel habits, comfort and convenience in order to protect the environment is very weak among German air travellers.
Identical findings become apparent with regards to domestic holidays, which portrays yet another mitigation strategy. In the event of increasing the number of local holidays, long-
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 475 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
distance air travels can easily be avoided, and simultaneously the emission of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, only 26% are actually willing to spend their vacations in closer destinations for the sake of climate protection. Over half of the respondents are not prepared to restrict their travel patterns by spending their holidays in Germany on a regular basis.
Generally speaking, the willingness to participate in voluntary carbon-offsetting schemes is acceptably high, despite the fact that German tourists are not as prepared to alter their travel patterns, for example by alternative mobility choices or travel destinations. The barrier of paying a premium amount for compensation seems lower than changing holiday habits and lifestyles entirely. Even though the problem of missing informational and financial resources might excuse people of compensating their emissions, it does not provide an explanation for the missing switch to alternative transport decisions. Here is an urgent need for a stronger moral thinking of German tourists. In good agreement with Cohen, Higham and Reis (2013), tourists rather tend to abandon or suppress concerns about the climate, than change habitual travel patterns. Weeden and Boluk (2014) stressed that hedonic motivations dominate tourist’s minds when being on holiday. In other words, people see pleasure and joy as the highest priorities when travelling.
Last but not least it will be demonstrated whether demographic factors have an influence on the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German air travellers. As pointed out previously, around 57% are prepared to participate in compensation initiatives. The question arises whether age, gender and level of education have an influence on this group of tourists.
Care should be taken with the interpretation of these findings, as the total number of respondents is unevenly distributed among the different age, gender and educational groups. Consequently, conclusions should not be drawn by just regarding basic counts of each group. Further numerical values were generated for a better evaluation of the data. These include the percentage of each count within the total age, gender or educational group of the respondent, as well as the expected count. The latter is a hypothetical parameter used as a kind of reference scale. It represents the expected value of each column by assuming that no correlation between the two variables exists.
Interesting results appear regarding the influence of age on the willingness of German air travellers to compensate greenhouse gas emissions. Although respondents aged 25 or younger hold the highest sum, they actually indicate the lowest percentage by comparing other counts in relation to their total number. That is the reason why respondents aged between 36 and 45 show a 100% willingness to compensate. An increasing willingness is visible with respect to the first three age groups. However, an obvious pattern cannot be drawn regarding older age groups. In order to ensure whether these results hold statistical significance, the Pearson Chi-Square test was applied using SPSS. It is used to detect whether there is a correlation between two variables (VanderStoep and Johnston, 2009), in this case the age of the respondent and the willingness to donate a compensatory fee. In either case, the test assumes that there is no dependence between both variables (null
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 476 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
hypothesis). The asymptotic significance proclaims the probability of this hypothesis. However, the asymptotic significance displays a value of 0.267 and indicates that there is no correlation between age and the willingness to compensate air travel emissions. A possible reason is the varying number of participants in the different age groups. According to these results, it is not possible to support research by Mair (2011), who found that those who are more likely to compensate their air travel emissions belong to younger age groups.
In the next step, the correlation between gender and the willingness to compensate will be analysed using the same procedure as above. Past research suggests that men are more likely to participate in compensation schemes (Mair, 2011), although women tend to show a higher environmental responsiveness (Wells, Ponting and Peattie, 2011). Results imply that the influence of gender on the willingness to compensate is as follows: women (63.2%) show a higher tendency to participate in voluntary carbon-offsetting programmes than men (50%). It should be noted that these results are questionable since there are generally more female than male respondents in this survey. This fact could lead to distortions in the responses. For this reason the Chi-Square test was used to detect whether there is a correlation between the two variables. The asymptotic significance (0.404) is very high and leads to the assumption that there is no dependence between gender and the willingness to voluntarily offset greenhouse gas emissions.
In the end it remains to determine whether the educational level of respondents influences their willingness to compensate air travel emissions. The findings reveal that respondents who completed Mittlere Reife (upper secondary school) (70%), university (63.5%) and Abitur (high school) (57.9%) show the highest willingness to purchase carbon-offsets. Apart from Mittlere Reife, those degrees belong to higher educational levels. People with university degree receive the highest absolute count, followed by high school graduates. Explicit evidence regarding the findings by Mair (2011) and Wehrli et al. (2011) is given with regards to the lower type of secondary school Hautpschule. Only two respondents who attained this educational degree are prepared to offset carbon emissions in future. The Chi-Square test confirmed a correlation between level of education and willingness to purchase offsets. According to the asymptotic significance of 0.021, there is a 98% probability that the willingness of compensating is dependent on the level of education. On the whole, it can be concluded that German air travellers are more willing to purchase voluntary carbon-offsets in case they have attained a higher level of education.
To summarise the above, demographic factors will probably have certain influence on the willingness to neutralise air travel emissions, however, this could only partly be proven in this study. Evidence has not been accomplished with regards to the dependence of compensation behaviour on age or gender of the respondents. Nevertheless, the study revealed that better-educated tourists show a higher willingness to CO2 compensation. Based on these findings, the third hypothesis can only partially be supported.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 477 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to analyse whether environmental attitudes and concerns have an influence on the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German tourists. A gap between pro-environmental attitudes of tourists with respect to climate change and corresponding change of travel behaviour was indicated in past literature. Especially the willingness to offset air travel emissions has not enjoyed much attention in the past. Major reasons included a lack of price, time and information that impede the change to sustainable alternatives. Despite moral concerns, peoples’ personal needs often have a stronger influence over their actions. Since the focus of past studies was on countries like Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong, geographical reasons led to the choice of conducting similar research in Germany. By carrying out structured face-to-face interviews at the Hamburg airport, the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German tourists was analysed and evaluated.
With regards to the research results, German air travellers show a reasonable level of concern when it comes to general environmental issues, particularly in terms of climate change. The top three ranked environmental problems that will have future impacts on a local and global scale included pollution, global warming and extreme weather events. Interestingly, tourists do not critically assess their individual travel behaviour with impacts on the climate. Although the majority of respondents display pro-environmental measurements in their everyday-life, only a minority of participants have made attempts to adjust travel patterns with a high environmental impact. This holds particular relevance with respect to neutralising air travel emissions through compensation. Identical to past investigations, only 4% have ever voluntarily participated in a carbon-offsetting scheme before. It became evident that environmental concerns about climate change do not automatically lead to the willingness to offset the own travel emissions. Accordingly, the inconsistency between environmental attitudes and related behaviour can also be supported for German tourists. The findings suggest that moral concerns are not very pronounced since the tourist does not question his own travel behaviour. On the other hand it was clearly perceived as an issue, but there was also a lack of awareness and familiarity with the idea of carbon-offsetting which possibly provides an explanation for the low participation rate in compensating greenhouse gas emissions. Less than half of the respondents are familiar with the opportunity of compensating travel emissions, indicating a need for improvement in consumer education and communication.
Ambivalent results became evident considering the willingness to take future measures in travel behaviour. Over half of the respondents indicate a willingness to make an extra contribution, and most of them even encouraged mandatory compensation programmes. Conversely, only a low dedication was shown in terms of other mitigation strategies. Just a small amount of German air travellers considered spending their holidays in Germany more frequently. Even less tourists are prepared to reduce their flying performance. Thus, the barrier of paying a compensatory payment to neutralise emissions seems to be lower than changing holiday habits completely.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 478 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Identical to past research, the findings in this investigation indicated that tourists with a higher educational level tend to be more willing to purchase carbon-offsets in future. A possible reason could involve that better educated people might have and enhanced knowledge about climate change and its consequences for the environment. Unfortunately, no significant results were reported in matters of age and gender of the respondents. Difficulties in this sense derived from the number of respondents and the unequal distribution between different gradations.
On the whole, behavioural change in tourism mobilities is not completely dependent on moral concerns about climate change. Despite environmental friendly behaviour in the everyday life, German tourists have not shown many attempts to change travel behaviour. Thus, it remains a major challenge for the future. The low participation rate in voluntary carbon-offsetting schemes does not only indicate a call for consumer education and instruction, but also requires the awareness of other stakeholders in the travel industry. Tour operators, travel agencies, airlines and other tourism organisations have a high potential to communicate compensation programmes and make consumers more acquainted to this opportunity. There remains a strong need for improvement in terms of carbon-offsetting itself. Trust and transparency needs to be built in order to provide consolidate collaborations. All in all, behavioural change can only be realised in case every stakeholder is committed to make a difference. Limitations and future research
Several limitations have occurred during this study, especially with regard to the methodological procedure. Because it was decided on a non-probability sampling technique, the sample cannot be regarded as representative for the population of interest. In future studies, random selection of survey participants and a higher number of respondents are recommendable to receive a higher reliability of the data. This is particularly important with respect to demographic data, since strong variations appeared in terms of age and education. Future research may also imply the inclusion of supplementary methods of analysis since the current study only made use of frequency analyses. Applying correlation and regression analyses will lead to a higher significance of the survey results.
Besides, the study was solely conducted at the Hamburg airport. An inclusion of further locations would contribute to a better representation of German air travellers. Although it was assured that all of the respondents have taken a flight before, not everybody was actually travelling with the airplane at the interview day. It became evident that the last time a few of the interviewees have taken a flight was decades ago. Consequently, a low awareness for compensation schemes is self-evident. This should have been considered in the survey as it might contribute to errors in the findings or these respondents should have been excluded from the survey as it contradicts the main aim of the research- to question people that recently flew. Nevertheless, they were included as the numbers of respondents at the airport was rather sub-optimal.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 479 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
The paper predominantly emphasised environmental attitudes and concerns as being crucial determinants of sustainable tourist behaviour. There are, however, many other variables that have not been covered in the survey, as this would have gone beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the findings offer a first insight into the voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour of German tourists. Compelling evidence was provided for the gap between attitudes and action and may be seen as a starting point for future research. In this respect, it is highly recommended to conduct similar investigations on a larger scale, possibly at different locations in order to receive a good representation of German travellers. Also, the willingness of participating in a compensation programme could be linked to particular traveller segments, based on travel frequency, type of travel, income, and other demographics.
Another interesting approach could focus on the comparison between environmental attitudes and behaviours regarding different types of tourists, for instance railway users and air travellers. In addition, the comparison between offset purchasers and non-purchasers holds promise to understand different positions and motivations. Future research may pay closer attention to the reasons for refusal in order to identify weaknesses and potentials for development. In this sense, possible incentives for tourists to change their travel behaviour could also be explored. References
Adams J, Khan H, Raeside R, and White D (2007) Research Methods for Business and Social Science Students. New Delhi: Response Books.
Ajzen I and Fishbein M (2005) The Influence of Attitudes on Behaviour. In: Albarracín D, Johnson B and Zanna M (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes. New York: Psychology Press, pp.173-221.
Altinay L and Paraskevas A (2008) Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Barr ,S. (2004) Are we all environmentalists now?? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action, Geoforum,35, 231 – 249.
Barr,S., Shaw,G. Coles,T. And Prillwitz. (2010) A holiday is a holiday: Practicing sustainability, home and away. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3) 474 – 481.
Barr S and Prillwitz J (2011) Sustainable travel: mobility, lifestyle and practice. In: Newton P (ed) Urban Consumption. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, pp.159-171.
Becken S (2007) Tourists’ Perception of International Air Travel’s Impact on the Global Climate and Potential Climate Change Policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(4): 351-368.
Becken S and Hay J (2007) Tourism and Climate Change. Risks and Opportunities. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 480 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Bowen D and Clarke J (2009) Contemporary Tourist Behaviour. Yourself and Others as Tourists. Wallingford, England: CABI.
Bramwell B and Lane B (1993) Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1): 1-5.
Broderick J (2009) Voluntary Carbon Offsetting for Air Travel. In: Gössling S and Upham P (eds) Climate Change and Aviation. Issues, Challenges and Solutions. London: Earthscan, pp.329-346.
Budeanu A (2007) Sustainable tourist behaviour - a discussion of opportunities for change. International Journal of Consumer Studies 31: 499-508.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau- und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) (2015) Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2014. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage. Berlin: BMUB.
Butcher J (2003) The Moralisation of Tourism. Sun, sand … and saving the world?. London: Routledge.
Cialdini R (2001) Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cohen, S.A, Higham, J.E.S. and Cavaliere.C.T. (2011) Binge Flying : Behavioural Addiction and Climate Change, Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1070 – 1089.
Cohen S, Higham J and Reis A (2013) Sociological barriers to developing sustainable discretionary air travel behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(7): 982- 998.
Colton D and Covert R (2007) Designing and Constructing Instruments for Social Research and Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denscombe M (2010) The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research Projects (4th ed). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
DiPeso J (2007) Carbon offsets: Is the environment getting what you pay for?. Environmental Quality Management 17(2): 89-94.
Eijgelaar E (2011) Voluntary Carbon Offsets a Solution for Reducing Tourism Emissions? Assessment of Communication Aspects and Mitigation Potential. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11(3): 281-296.
Fennell DA (2006) Tourism Ethics. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Fennell DA and Malloy DC (2007) Codes of Ethics in Tourism. Practice, Theory, Synthesis. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen eV (FUR) (2014) Abschlussbericht zu dem
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 481 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Forschungsvorhaben: Nachfrage für nachhaltigen Tourismus im Rahmen der Reiseanalyse. Kiel: FUR.
Gössling S, Bredberg M, Randow A, Sandström E and Svensson P (2006) Tourist Perceptions of Climate Change: A Study of International Tourists in Zanzibar. Current Issues in Tourism 9(4&5): 419-435.
Gössling S, Broderick J, Upham P, Ceron JP, Dubois G, Peeters P and Strasdas W (2007) Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(3): 223-248.
Hergesell A and Dickinger A (2013) Environmentally friendly holiday transport mode choices among students: the role of price, time and convenience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(4): 596-613.
Hibbert J, Dickinson J, Gössling S and Curtin S (2013) Identity and tourism mobility: an exploration of the attitude–behaviour gap. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(7): 999-1016.
Hunter C and Shaw J (2007) The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tourism Management 28: 46-57.
International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2013) Annual Review 2013. Available at: http://www.iata.org/about/Documents/iata-annual-review-2013-en.pdf (accessed 11 February 2014).
International Ecotourism Society (2012) Is Carbon Offsetting an Effective Tool for Sustainable Tourism?. Available at: http://www.ecotourism.org/news/carbon- offsetting-effective-tool-sustainable-tourism (accessed 25 March 2014).
Jenkins I (2013) Sustainability and Climate Change. In: Jenkins I and Schröder R (eds) Sustainability in Tourism. A Multidisciplinary Approach. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, pp.33-51.
Kennedy E, Beckley T, McFarlane B and Nadeau S (2009) Why We Don’t “Walk the Talk”: Understanding the Environmental Values/Behaviour Gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review 16(2): 151-160.
Kollmuss A and Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research 8(2): 239-260.
Mair J (2011) Exploring air travellers’ voluntary carbon-offsetting behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(2): 215-230.
Mascontour GmbH (2015) Untersuchung deutscher Tourismusdestinationen zum nachhaltigen Tourismus 2015. Berlin: Mascontour.
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 482 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
McKercher B, Prideaux B, Cheung C and Law R (2010) Achieving Voluntary Reductions in the Carbon Footprint of Tourism and Climate Change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(3): 297-317.
O'Leary R and Miller R (2003) Questionnaires and structured interview schedules. In: Miller R and Brewer J (eds) The A-Z of Social Research. A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts. London: SAGE Publications, pp.253-255.
Prideaux B, Coghlan A and McKercher B (2011) Identifying Tourists' Likely to Adopt Voluntary Mitigation Activities. In: Weiermair K, Pechlaner H, Strobl A, Elmi M and Schuckert M (eds) Coping with Global Climate Change. Strategies, Policies and Measures for the Tourism Industry. Innsbruck, Austria: Innsbruck University Press, pp.41-59.
Randles,S. And Mander,S. (2009) Aviation consumption and climate change debate: Are you going to tell me off for flying?, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(1) 93 – 113.
Schuman H (1972) Attitudes vs. Actions Versus Attitudes vs. Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(3): 347-354.
Smith M and Duffy R (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development. London: Routledge.
Strasdas W, Gössling S and Dickhut H (2010) Treibhausgas-Kompensationsanbieter in Deutschland. Manuscript submitted for publication. Eberswalde, Germany: HNE Eberswalde. Available at: http://www.atmosfair.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Medienecke/Downloadmaterial/ Vergleichende_Studien/VZBV_Studie_Eberswalde.pdf (accessed 11 February 2014).
VanderStoep S and Johnston D (2009) Research Methods for Everyday Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weeden C and Boluk K (2014) Introduction. Managing ethical consumption in tourism – compromises and tensions. In: Weeden C and Boluk K (eds) Managing Ethical Consumption in Tourism. Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp.1-15.
Wehrli R, Egli H, Lutzenberger M, Pfister D, Schwarz J and Stettler J (2011) Is there Demand for Sustainable Tourism? – A study for the World Tourism Forum Lucerne 2011. Lucerne: Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.
Wells V, Ponting C and Peattie K (2011) Behaviour and Climate Change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility. Journal of Marketing Management 27(7-8): 808-833.
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2008) Climate Change and Tourism. Responding to Global Challenges. Available at: http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/climate2008.pdf (accessed 26 January 2014).
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 483 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Tour operators and tourist’s Preferences for CSR Policies: A Choice Experiment Approach
Jorge E. Araña* & Gianluca Goffi^ & Carmelo J. León°
*TiDES (Institute of Tourism and Development Sustainable Economics).University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. [email protected]
^Universitá Politecnica dell Marche, Italy. [email protected]
° TiDES (Institute of Tourism and Development Sustainable Economics).University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. [email protected]
Key words: CSR policies; Choice Experiments; Tourist Demand; Tour operators.
Abstract
There is an increasing concern for environmental and social issues among international travellers. As a consequence, many tourist corporations have been exploring the implementation of Social Responsibility (SR) policies. Since these issues are not directly exchanged in markets, designing and predicting their impact on tourism demand raises several challenges from a managerial and academic point of view. In this study we propose the use of properly designed Choice Experiments (DCEs) to contribute to this task.
Here we implement two experiments. The first DCE was aimed at measuring visitors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for different SR actions. In particular the most valued policies were: (i) Labor conditions, (ii) Environmental issues, (iii) Local Community relations; iv) Animal welfare. Although there were some clear differences for SR actions among nationalities (e.g. “cultural bias”) the results show that tourists are willingness to travel more often, and willingness to pay more money for their trips if SR policies are implemented and properly communicated. In terms of importance, the dimensions were ranked as follows: (1) Environment; (2) Labor; (3) Social Projects for the Local Community. DCE results are shown that visitor’ preferences for SR policies were quite heterogeneous among the population. In particular it was found that SR preferences among the population could be characterized by a small segment of the population holding high WTP for such policies and a large portion of the population with low levels of WTP.
While all SR activities were discovered to have a positive influence on tourists choices, there still exist a large controversy estimating the real impact of SR policies on tourism demand. In order to account for potential explanations of this issue, a second DCE was implemented to elicit Tour Operators (TOs)’ perception of tourist preferences (and behavior) when facing
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 484 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
with information of alternative SR actions during the tourist package buying process. The results show that there were not statistical differences among TOs perception of visitors’ preferences and overall mean preference for the visitors’ sample. However, TOs responses do not seem to account for the existence of several segments in the population.
A further de-briefing study also found that demand heterogeneity is a key explanation for the gap among SR preference levels and implementation. Further actions aimed at improving SR communication strategies to reach specific market segments and to improve suppliers’ market efficiency at the destination. References
Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & H€ausler, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: The disclosure-performance gap. Tourism Management, 33(6), 15441553.
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude/behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 7695
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 485 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
APPENDICES Conference Program
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 486 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 487 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 488 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 489 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 490 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 491 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 492 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 493 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 494 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 495 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 496 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 497 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 498 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 499 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 500 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 501 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
List of Participants
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 502 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 503 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 504 BEST EN Think Tank XVI
Corporate Responsibility in Tourism – Standards Practices and Policies
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Building Excellence in Sustainable Tourism Education Network Think Tank 505